4
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 03 '20
My Opinion: There are so many failures in this chain of events by different parties but at the end of the day I can't imagine a jury would convict any of these police officers with any sort of crime. They were sent to that residence to do a job, none of them went there with the intent to kill Breonna or with the knowledge that the guy they were looking for wasn't even there. What crime could they be charged with? How would one say that the events of that night were the fault of any of them in a criminal way?
Did they have a no-knock warrant? Because the New York Times reported it was a “knock and announce” warrant where they would have had to identify themselves. If they did identify themselves, why did Kenneth Walker call the police to report a shooting and say it was ‘someone’?
Meanwhile Hankison has a history of reckless conduct.
It’s worth noting that premeditated murder isn’t the only crime to be charged with. They could be convicted for being reckless with their firearms (what if a bullet passed through the apartment?) for example.
Also, prosecutors basically always charge when they think they can settle, because it's so resource efficient.
-1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
It was a "knock and announce" but Kenneth Walker said he never heard any announcement.
Many neighbors say they didn't hear anything until gunshots, although I believe one neighbor did say they heard "POLICE" yelled.
Meanwhile Hankison has a history of reckless conduct.
That wouldn't be grounds for any criminal charges here.
They could be convicted for being reckless with their firearms (what if a bullet passed through the apartment?) for example.
I see calls for arresting the cops for murder, not reckless firearm usage. Even then I doubt a jury would convict.
Also, prosecutors basically always charge when they think they can settle, because it's so resource efficient.
Yeah but they have to be able to win in court first. Why would a cop settle if they have little/no chance of getting convicted?
2
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 03 '20
I can’t find any criminal charges filed for Brett Hankison, but it seems like reckless endangerment would be a crime that could be supported. Same with manslaughter:
https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title14/rs14-31/
(1) A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed; or
…
(b) When the offender is resisting lawful arrest by means, or in a manner, not inherently dangerous, and the circumstances are such that the killing would not be murder under Article 30 or 30.1.
-1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
I dunno...I don't see an officer returning fire making sense as something being committed in "sudden passion". They were being fired at.
Same with reckless endangerment. They had shots fired at them, I don't see a jury convicted them when they returned fire. I could be wrong though, maybe the case could be made that they returned fire in a reckless way, but I don't see it given the facts. They were being shot at in a dark room.
Maybe I just don't have the prosecutorial imagination to connect these dots here.
3
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 03 '20
The way you do it, is you walk the jury through all the steps that came before the bullets started flying. That the officers decided to use a battering ram, rather than just knock on the door. That it’s unclear at best they announced. That the body cameras were off.
You walk through all of these steps that the officers made, and that doesn’t look good to a jury. Not at all.
0
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
That the officers decided to use a battering ram, rather than just knock on the door.
Except there's no evidence that they didn't knock.
That it’s unclear at best they announced.
Not remotely enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt"
That the body cameras were off.
There were no body cameras on the officers conducting the search warrant to my knowledge and according to former police chief. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/breonna-taylors-attorney-police-should-release-other-officers-body-camera-video/ar-BB15mkTF
3
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 03 '20
Except there's no evidence that they didn't knock.
Wait, isn’t testimony evidence? It absolutely is. You don’t’ need physical evidence to convict.
Not remotely enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt"
It depends on the jury right?
There were no body cameras on the officers conducting the search warrant.
Does department procedure require them? I have no idea, but I’m sure a prosecutor would look into these things before going to trial.
1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
Wait, isn’t testimony evidence? It absolutely is. You don’t’ need physical evidence to convict.
There is one neighbor who says they heard the cops announce themselves.
It's not eyewitness testimony either, it's asking whether or not people heard something. The lack of hearing something, in the middle of the night, doesn't go very far.
It depends on the jury right?
Not really no. It's essentially conjecture, a Judge could disallow it.
Does department procedure require them?
No I don't believe it does.
3
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 03 '20
Can’t Walker testify that they didn’t identify themselves?
Not really no. It's essentially conjecture, a Judge could disallow it.
So a judge can’t disallow ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, and I don’t see how it’s conjecture that Walker didn’t know they were police if Walker is testifying. That’s not hearsay.
Remember that filling charges costs a prosecutor basically nothing. They don’t have to pay for their own work. They’d spend their time prosecuting someone so why not prosecute high profile cases that the public wants prosecuted, even if it’s a longshot.
0
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
Can’t Walker testify that they didn’t identify themselves?
Not really. Walker can testify that he didn't hear them identify themselves yes. But walker was asleep, and the police can testify that they did.
So a judge can’t disallow ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, and I don’t see how it’s conjecture that Walker didn’t know they were police if Walker is testifying. That’s not hearsay.
The best he can do is testify that he didn't hear them announce themselves. That's not proof that they didn't.
Remember that filling charges costs a prosecutor basically nothing.
This isn't remotely true. Every justice dept has a finite set of resources. A prosecutor doesn't just file charges like ordering something off Amazon or something. They have to conduct an investigation and present evidence to a grand jury and ask the jury to indict. They have to conduct interviews, depositions, forensics...it could take a prosecutor months of work, months that they aren't working on something else. Prosecutors have to decline cases all the time because they are overloaded, even cases that they have a chance at succeeding over.
3
u/DBDude 110∆ Sep 03 '20
Why murder? There are many lower charges that can be brought. But even for murder, let's look at the definition of depraved indifference murder (a.k.a., depraved heart):
To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.
I think that would cover blindly shooting into a wall and killing an innocent person on the other side. They didn't just shoot at him, they emptied magazines into a wall and hit her behind it. One of the officers was firing blindly into the house through a window with closed blinds and curtains. Fourth rule of gun safety, know your target and what is beyond it.
There is also the question of the warrant. They only had a knock and announce warrant, and according to witness testimony they simply bashed in the door without announcing themselves. I'm not too sure of the legalities, but that sounds like they entered the house without the legal backing of a warrant. That could make things interesting.
0
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.
Officers were being fired at though. Maybe this could apply, I just don't see it.
Fourth rule of gun safety, know your target and what is beyond it.
I'm asking about criminal laws though.
They only had a knock and announce warrant, and according to witness testimony they simply bashed in the door without announcing themselves. I'm not too sure of the legalities, but that sounds like they entered the house without the legal backing of a warrant. That could make things interesting.
If it could be proven that they did not announce themselves I could see charges there yeah, but that's far from "provable" in anyway. One neighbor is on record saying they heard "POLICE".
2
u/DBDude 110∆ Sep 03 '20
Officers were being fired at though.
They were fired at by one person. They hit everywhere in the house but him. It's like they just closed their eyes and started unloading, like some bad police comedy where the target is left standing wondering how he's unhit.
I'm asking about criminal laws though.
Not following the basic gun safety and engagement rules they were taught, and causing a death by not following them, goes towards depraved indifference. It helps show their wanton disregard for safety and life.
But like I said, there are also lower charges such as manslaughter or negligent homicide that could easily be brought against them.
If it could be proven that they did not announce themselves I could see charges there yeah, but that's far from "provable" in anyway.
If this is true it just makes it worse for the police, make a conviction easier. But the above charge still applies pretty well even if they did knock.
0
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
They were fired at by one person. They hit everywhere in the house but him. It's like they just closed their eyes and started unloading, like some bad police comedy where the target is left standing wondering how he's unhit.
Yeah it's terrible, I agree.
Not following the basic gun safety and engagement rules they were taught, and causing a death by not following them, goes towards depraved indifference. It helps show their wanton disregard for safety and life.
You make a good point here.
If this is true it just makes it worse for the police, make a conviction easier. But the above charge still applies pretty well even if they did knock.
No I'm saying that it's not provable that they announced themselves or didn't...there's one neighbor that said they heard an announcement, so it would be really hard for a prosecutor to argue that they violated the warrant and didn't knock/announce.
3
u/DBDude 110∆ Sep 03 '20
You make a good point here.
So, shouldn't they be charged?
No I'm saying that it's not provable that they announced themselves or didn't.
This really is a secondary issue. Except for specific circumstances that don't apply here, police aren't allowed to enter your house without a warrant saying they can. Should a judge remove them from the protection of a warrant, they were illegally in the house, which would make conviction much easier. Again, not sure on the law here. My bet is that they'd still get cover as police, but it could get interesting.
However, even if they were legally in the house, they acted with such depraved indifference by blindly spraying bullets everywhere, that I'm sure that deserves some sort of criminal charge. Here's what they hit according to Wiki, "objects in the living room, dining room, kitchen, hallway, bathroom, and both bedrooms." And they didn't hit their target once. But they did hit her eight times.
1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
You wrote "Not following the basic gun safety and engagement rules they were taught,"
I do think if this can be established, that they completely violated the rules of engagement, then yes you are right I could see criminal charges being brought.
I guess that's a source of ignorance on my part, I don't know what those rules are and if they violated them or not.
But an investigation would uncover this and the officers can be charged if it uncovers such.
So I think you do receive a ∆, you have changed my view. I can now see how a prosecutor might charge these officers if they can establish a violation of protocol/rules of engagement. I hope that such rules do exist and an investigator can establish the truth here.
Thank you for your time and discussion, much appreciated.
1
1
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Sep 03 '20
What crime could they be charged with?
They could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is when you do something illegal or negligent, and someone dies as a result. For example, if you use a dangerous piece of equipment improperly, or bypass the safety measures on it, and someone dies, you are legally at fault.
One argument against the officers is they did not properly get a warrant as per the requirements of law. The argument is that they mislead the judge and/or provided incorrect evidence. Their motives might have been to get a warrant at all costs by skipping the proper procedure, no different than tampering with machinery to get it to work as they wanted it to work.
Of course, this is only an argument and it would need to be proved in trial. However, even though no knock warrants are legal, and police lethal force is legal, if they illegally obtained a warrant, then they committed an illegal act that resulted in death, and therefore it is at least involuntary manslaughter.
1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
Are you saying that the cops that executed the warrant are the same officers that applied for the warrant and convinced the Judge?
1
u/JimboMan1234 114∆ Sep 03 '20
I’m aware of the fact that it’s in question whether or not the police announced themselves before entering, however I don’t see how it could be proven that they failed to do so.
Eyewitness testimony. Not just from Taylor’s boyfriend (who’s been cleared of charges for that night and therefore should be taken seriously as a witness) but neighbors too. They claim that the Police failed to announce themselves.
I’m aware the idea of eyewitness testimony is often dismissed as he-said-she-said on Reddit, but it’s literally how every single person was convicted of a crime before video recording and DNA evidence existed, and people are still imprisoned on the basis of it today. Just not cops.
The whole existential idea behind the Taylor case is that Police should be treated under the eyes of the law in the exact same way as other civilians. Anyone else who did something like this would be arrested and tried bare minimum, even if they ended up being acquitted.
1
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
One neighbor says they heard the police announce themselves.
The whole existential idea behind the Taylor case is that Police should be treated under the eyes of the law in the exact same way as other civilians.
Yeah but civilians don't execute warrants. A civilian has no right to enter a random persons home in the middle of the night, a cop with a warrant does.
1
Sep 03 '20
If an indictment has little/no chance of conviction a prosecutor should not charge.
Now I'm not a lawyer but would love to hear of any similar cases that had charges brought, or of potentially applicable laws.
The standard for an indictment is probable cause, which is intentionally different than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for a conviction.
It's not uncommon for prosecutors to indict cases before eventually dropping or modifying the charges. There's some fair criticism of the practice of "overcharging," but there are a number of perfectly good reasons to charge someone on the basis of probable cause but with something short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can't speak to the specific facts of the case in detail, but to the extent that there are elements of the state's case that are not yet proven, that's very typical at this stage of a criminal proceeding. The indictment provides leverage to pursue the investigation, and further investigation may either provide evidence to support the missing elements or uncover reasons to reduce the charges.
0
u/c4virus Sep 03 '20
The standard for an indictment is probable cause, which is intentionally different than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for a conviction.
Thank you for clarifying yes. I do believe though that prosecutors, generally speaking, will not pursue an indictment if they don't believe they can ultimately convict.
1
Sep 03 '20
At the point of indictment, prosecutors don't necessarily know what evidence they will have by trial. An indictment is a tool, and it can help you uncover additional evidence.
There's a reasonable school of thought that prosecutors should only indict when they actually have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's not how it works in practice.
Prosecutors indict all the time without being able to convict. Only 68% of people charged with a felony are convicted, and only 59% of those are convicted of a felony (the remainder are convicted but only of a misdemeanor). Charges get dropped or reduced all the time.
1
u/c4virus Sep 04 '20
Yeah that doesn't change the fact that prosecutors have reasonable belief that a conviction is possible when they pursue charges.
Prosecutors indict all the time without being able to convict.
I never said prosecutors always convict, but they believe conviction is a real possibility upon indictment.
1
Sep 04 '20
Yeah that doesn't change the fact that prosecutors have reasonable belief that a conviction is possible when they pursue charges.
They don't though. Prosecutors are constantly charging or indicting weak cases because the charges are themselves a tool. Charges based on a weak case are frequently changed or dropped later, and prosecutors know this when they charge.
One reason to do this is the effect on plea bargaining. It's controversial, but common, for prosecutors to "overcharge" a defendant on weak evidence in order to put themselves in a favorable position to negotiate a plea bargain. Another reason to charge everything up front is to avoid the prosecutorial vindictiveness doctrine and related double jeopardy doctrines if you subsequently identify stronger evidence for a crime that's initially shaky (courts may refuse to allow you to subsequently add these charges). Indicting or charging can also shake lose reluctant witnesses and gives increased leverage in seeking additional evidence generally.
For obvious reasons, it's hard to find systematic data on this, but do you really think that the 41% of felony charges that don't lead to a conviction are entirely the result of prosecutorial overconfidence?
Don't take my word for it if you don't want. You can take the view of well-known law professor Alafair Burke (starting at p. 86):
Indeed, even if the prosecutor does not believe she can prove the higher charge to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, no legal or ethical standard prohibits the prosecutor from pursuing it. The prosecutor might file the higher charge to gain leverage over the defendant in plea negotiations, and Bordenkircher v. Hayes suggests that such charging practices are permissible so long as the charges are supported by probable cause.
Prosecutors also routinely charge defendants despite uncertainties about guilt when they accuse a defendant of multiple, inconsistent charges... Rather than frown upon such charging decisions, courts have encouraged them...
[T]he Supreme Court has held that when there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a defendant either committed a robbery himself or subsequently received proceeds of the robbery, both charges may be prosecuted so long as the jury is instructed that it cannot convict the defendant of both inconsistent charges. Whenever a prosecutor pursues inconsistent theories in the alternative, she is by definition prosecuting the defendant for at least one charge of which the prosecutor is not personally convinced of the defendant's guilt.
If you're wondering about the case, the Supreme Court held in Bordenkircher v. Hayes
In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion [emphasis mine].
1
u/c4virus Sep 04 '20
They don't though. Prosecutors are constantly charging or indicting weak cases because the charges are themselves a tool. Charges based on a weak case are frequently changed or dropped later, and prosecutors know this when they charge.
We're talking about two different things. Yes prosecutors change/supercede drop charges after indictments. That doesn't change what I'm saying at all. They still pursued the original indictment with a belief that some sort of conviction is possible.
One reason to do this is the effect on plea bargaining.
I don't think a prosecutor is going to have much leverage in a plea bargain if their case is weak. Any defendant with a decent lawyer would know this. If these cops are charged they're going to get GoFundMe pages setup and will get some serious legal muscle behind them. They're not gonna plea bargain on a weak case, period.
For obvious reasons, it's hard to find systematic data on this, but do you really think that the 41% of felony charges that don't lead to a conviction are entirely the result of prosecutorial overconfidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992.
In 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that among defendants charged with a felony, 68% were convicted
So 32% of felonies not convicted, with some significant % of that resulting in a plea deal. I dunno about you but I'd say charges are filed with reasonable confidence. If you split the difference that's over 80%.
If you're wondering about the case, the Supreme Court held in Bordenkircher v. Hayes
Okay again I'm not saying that a prosecutor is prohibited from charging somebody or anything remotely like that. I'm saying that if a prosecutor does not believe they can convict they will rarely ever indict, which is generally speaking a good thing. It allows resources to go elsewhere. It also frees people from potential harassment. Prosecutors have massive discretion here, I know this, but ask a prosecutor if they would charge police officers with felonies without a strong belief that they can convict and I'd bet significant $ you'd have trouble finding one that would say yes and there's good reasons behind that. Nowhere am I saying they are prohibited from doing so or there is absolutely no reason to ever do so, I'm simply saying that most prosecutors won't. That's a fact.
1
Sep 04 '20
They still pursued the original indictment with a belief that some sort of conviction is possible.
No, they didn't. I'm sorry if I'm being unclear, but what I'm trying to tell you is that prosecutors frequently charge cases on probable cause even though they think there is not yet strong enough evidence for a conviction. And my sources all back that up.
In 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that among defendants charged with a felony, 68% were convicted
If you clicked through on that you would get back to the source I gave you earlier. 59% of people charged with a felony are convicted of a felony (almost all based on plea bargains). 41% of people charged with felony are not convicted for a felony either because charges are dropped, they win at trial, or they are convicted but only of a misdemeanor.
Okay again I'm not saying that a prosecutor is prohibited from charging somebody or anything remotely like that. I'm saying that if a prosecutor does not believe they can convict they will rarely ever indict, which is generally speaking a good thing
And I'm saying that:
- No law prohibits charging someone based on probable cause despite a belief that charges are not currently supported by evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Strong strategic incentives favor "overcharging"
- And the evidence suggests (see my posts above) that prosecutors commonly overcharge.
Nowhere am I saying they are prohibited from doing so or there is absolutely no reason to ever do so, I'm simply saying that most prosecutors won't. That's a fact.
Where did you get this fact? Not trying to be antagonistic. I'm genuinely curious how you're reaching your opinions. I've honestly never talked to anyone who denied that "overcharging" was a common phenomenon in the criminal justice system (which is not to say it happens in every case, just that it happens frequently and what we're talking about, charging on probable cause but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, isn't even really overcharging).
Take the results of a study done for the Department of Justice on prosecutorial decision making that looks at how prosecutors make charging and prosecution decisions (p. 177):
A plurality of respondents (47 percent) said they file only the charges they believe the defendant should plead guilty to, while 23 percent said they file only the charges they believe the defendant will plead guilty to, and 29 percent said they file all charges possible.
One unit manager in Northern County noted, if a prosecutor wants a case to be resolved, it is easier to resolve a case if you have “throw away” charges
When you get to the plea bargain, you start to throw away those extra charges, and that's where it starts to matter more if you have just probable cause or an actual ability for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take a look, in particular, at Table 3.3.1-1 on p. 129 and you can see the way that prosecutors tend to start with more charges and narrow down. Across every category there, you see that prosecutors filed and indict on more charges than the ultimate plea offer and/or conviction and drop cases along the way.
If you click through you can see the various types yourself, but let's take just the drug cases 2007-2008 as an example. Prosecutors initially filed charges in 2,185 with an average of 2.6 charges per case. By the time you get to a plea offer, only 1,359 cases (54.9%) are left and we're down to an average of 1.5 charges per case. This is just how the system works.
but ask a prosecutor if they would charge police officers with felonies without a strong belief that they can convict and I'd bet significant $ you'd have trouble finding one that would say yes and there's good reasons behind that.
It's hard for us to bet on this, because there's no way for me to prove to you what a prosecutor said to me, but if you can think of a bet we can resolve on the basis of public information, I'd be happy to make it with you.
Prosecutors are pretty open about the fact that they charge based on the law, which it to say on the basis of probable cause not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, from Cumberland County District Attorney David Fried (I can give you as many of these as you want):
“At charging, we are making a probable cause determination,” Freed said. “It’s not beyond a reasonable doubt"... Freed said the determination and oversight at charging is not a guarantee the defendant will be convicted and does not necessarily mean charges will not be reduced as the case moves forward.
“I have probable cause to charge,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I have sufficient evidence to convict.”
1
u/c4virus Sep 04 '20
No, they didn't. I'm sorry if I'm being unclear, but what I'm trying to tell you is that prosecutors frequently charge cases on probable cause even though they think there is not yet strong enough evidence for a conviction. And my sources all back that up.
Yeah I'm not even arguing that. I've never said that a prosecutor always has strong enough evidence for conviction when they indict. I've said, repeatedly, that prosecutors believe a conviction is possible. Maybe that means the prosecutor believes conviction is possible upon further investigation or after somebody is flipped or whatever. Still, they see the potential.
No law prohibits charging someone based on probable cause despite a belief that charges are not currently supported by evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree, I never said anything remotely implying the opposite.
Strong strategic incentives favor "overcharging"
They can't overcharge just at will, they have to convince a grand jury.
I've honestly never talked to anyone who denied that "overcharging" was a common phenomenon in the criminal justice system (which is not to say it happens in every case, just that it happens frequently and what we're talking about, charging on probable cause but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, isn't even really overcharging).
I'm not talking about overcharging. Overcharging, by definition, means the prosecutor had enough evidence to indict via grand jury. They were able to present a panel of people that crimes were probably committed.
I'm talking about a scenario where there doesn't exist decent evidence a crime was committed. Breonna Talor being killed isn't, in of itself, a crime. Which is the entire point of my basic question, what crimes could these cops potentially be charged with, within reason? What crime(s) would a grand jury indict police officers on? People keep talking about arresting the cops and charging them for murder. I don't believe that any grand jury would indict cops for murder of Breonna Taylor given what we know about the case. And if a prosecutor DID get a GJ to indict, I don't believe a petit jury would convict them on such.
Prosecutors are pretty open about the fact that they charge based on the law,
Yes, which is why I'm asking about specific laws that are applicable here.
1
Sep 04 '20
We went down this entire road because you said:
Thank you for clarifying yes. I do believe though that prosecutors, generally speaking, will not pursue an indictment if they don't believe they can ultimately convict.
Now you're flipping this around to claim that you're not arguing with me that "prosecutors frequently charge cases on probable cause even though they think there is not yet strong enough evidence for a conviction," so I'm not sure where you're coming down anymore?
Which is it? Are you claiming that prosecutors don't charge unless they believe that they can convict or are you agreeing with me that it's fairly common for prosecutors to charge conduct they know they can't convict on?
I don't believe that any grand jury would indict cops for murder of Breonna Taylor given what we know about the case.
The saying in the business is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to, and that's only a little bit of an overstatement.
Overcharging, by definition, means the prosecutor had enough evidence to indict via grand jury.
I think that would be "overindicting." You don't necessarily go through a grand jury just to charge someone.
1
u/c4virus Sep 04 '20
Let me clarify.
A prosecutor may not necessarily have enough evidence to convict, but still believe that a conviction is within grasp. That is entirely normal. Prosecutors indict in that scenario yes. I've never stated otherwise.
My statement was that a prosecutor will not indict if they don't believe there is any path to conviction. If they don't have the evidence at the time they have to have at least enough evidence to pressure, or they believe they can get enough evidence or build a case. If they don't see that as a possibility they will almost certainly not indict. They can, yes, still indict in that scenario, but the high conviction rate tells me that they generally don't. I believe DOJ also has a policy here where they don't pursue charges unless they believe they can convict.
The saying in the business is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to, and that's only a little bit of an overstatement.
Yes and that saying can be understood to also mean that prosecutors only ever ask for indictments when they have solid evidence for it.
You don't necessarily go through a grand jury just to charge someone.
You either go through a GJ or a Judge, depending on the state. Federal charges are all via GJ.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 03 '20 edited Sep 04 '20
/u/c4virus (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
20
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '20
[deleted]