reply to post by Bob Sholtz
Man I really feel like I'm missing something here. I will be happy if someone debunks.
Withhold evidence to help your case against someone and it seems like you should be in a lot deeper nasty than 10 days in jail and some community
service. Regardless of the time they end up serving.
Not only can they, they do it during the most vital time. The Grand Jury hearing. They can realease as much or as little as they want. Even
exculpatory evidence, because if it isn't in discovery, the prosecutor is the only one who knows it exists.
In my sons' case, a uniformed officer went to a house, took a recorded statement, assigned it an evidence number, transferred it to cd rom. It was in
evidence, the public defender heard it, but was not allowed to copy it.
Later, prior to the trial, a new attorney had been hired. She requested the evidence by the description from the officers'report, and the number. It
was reported as "lost". The "Judge", who was the DA that signed my sons' warrant, gave the new DA a month to find the evidence.
Right before trial, the evidence was proclaimed a mistake. No recording was ever made. The uniformed officer recanted his original report, the
evidence number was proclaimed a mistake, and the uniformed officer was not called to testify. The evidence, though referenced for over two years, was
exculpatory, and simply allowed to fade from existance.
The original report was re-written to match the court testimony of the alleged "victim", that had demonstrably changed 3 times from beginning at
arrest to trial. The convicting story did not even resemble the original report, and cited evidence, that no longer existed.
The indictment was signed by someone that doesn't exist, and the names of the grand jurors on the list were not the names of the grand jurors that
ever sat any session.
The indictment is to be signed by the grand jury foreperson or the replacement if there was one, or the bailiff. None of those people signed it. To
this day, we do not know who signed the indictment.
After two no bills, prisoners should be released. The DA denied the no bills. They took the indictment to a new gj session. Also not allowed. It is to
be heard by only one gj. When he could not get what he wanted, he did what he had to do, regardless of the law.
A no bill was returned twice, while he was jailed. Ther third, and fake indictment, was a "true bill", after the "Judge that should have recused
himself" warned the new DA, "You have less than 10 days to get an indictment or we have to let him go."
The indictment is to be walked to open court, read in open court, and transcribed by the clerk. None of this was done. It was just "filed as a true
ETA: I forgot one of the most important parts. To convict a DA, you must prove malicious intent in most, if not all, states. DA's, like judges, enjoy
a very high immunity to prosecution. It is extremely rare. The headline may be a but exaggerative, but not as much as you may be inclined to think.
Judges are almost impossible to convict over a case decision or conspiracy to railroad. It is almost impossible to prove, and judges are usually
convicted for actual crimes they commit, not over their cases.
edit on 9-11-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)