Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,756
#3,756
therealUT said:
Saying that someone might have done something and saying that someone did something are very distinct assertions.
Click to expand...

So? That doesn't matter to the prosecutor's function. He still has to convince a third party that the evidence supports the level of legal scrutiny that it must. The prosecutor's presumption of guilt is meaningless to that process.
 
#3,757
#3,757
NWGVol said:
I'm speaking only in reference to the prosecution. Why would a prosecutor need evidence to build a case for an innocent person?
Click to expand...

How do you even say someone is guilty without first gathering convicting evidence? People are not guilty on hunches. They are guilty according to evidence.
 
#3,759
#3,759
Just like the defense, there are good ones and bad ones on the prosecution side as well
 
#3,766
#3,766
therealUT said:
He should be presenting evidence of probable cause, not of guilt.
Click to expand...

I see where you are going and agree to a certain extent. The investigators and the DA start with probable cause, which includes motive, opportunity etc. But, they often begin with circumstantial evidence and need to build their case from there. I draw a distinction between the efforts of the DA and prosecutors and the Grand Jury.

My understanding is the Grand Jury's decision is only that the evidence they receive meets the probable cause standard sufficient to proceed to trial. The DA doesn't need to present all of the evidence to the Grand Jury, just enough to get an indictment and move to trial. I could even see times where the DA may not even have all of their evidence collected yet but still have enough to get the indictment and move forward.
 
#3,768
#3,768
Vols520 said:
I wish that were te cAse. A lot times they are prosecuting innocents or those that have been over charged.
Click to expand...

Yea, but that should come with evidence and its up the grand jury to convict based on that evidence, not what the prosecutor may think. What there are a lot of people in jail that are wrongfully convicted, but that pails in comparison to those that need to be there.
 
#3,769
#3,769
knucklehead_vol said:
Yea, but that should come with evidence and its up the grand jury to convict based on that evidence, not what the prosecutor may think. What there are a lot of people in jail that are wrongfully convicted, but that pails in comparison to those that need to be there.
Click to expand...

Respectfully Disagree w your last point.
 
#3,772
#3,772
knucklehead_vol said:
Yea, but that should come with evidence and its up the grand jury to convict based on that evidence, not what the prosecutor may think. What there are a lot of people in jail that are wrongfully convicted, but that pails in comparison to those that need to be there.
Click to expand...

The grand jury doesn't convict, they indict. The accused doesn't even appear before the grand jury and may not even know there is evidence against them being presented. The accused get their chance when the case goes to court.
 
#3,774
#3,774
therealUT said:
How do you even say someone is guilty without first gathering convicting evidence? People are not guilty on hunches. They are guilty according to evidence.
Click to expand...

A possible crime has been committed, there has to be a presumption of guilt to start gathering evidence. If there's no evidence, the presumption of guilt moves to someone else, but the presumption has to be there to get the process started, does it not?
 
#3,775
#3,775
San Diego Vol said:
I don't like what he did but I would lawyer up too
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Everyone seems focused on the fact that he hired a criminal attorney, but I would think that being who he is he hired the best he could and that attorney would also be able to represent him in a civil case (or hire a team to do so). What is your take?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top