 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
Today's Rome News-Tribune says the defense has challenged the legality of the Chairperson of the Grand Jury (that issued the latest indictment against Scott Harper.)
It seems the Chairperson of the Grand Jury (who was born in 1984---Never heard of anyone so young even serving on a Grand Jury, much less serving as the Chair) has a criminal record. He originally pled under the First Offender Status, then violated his Probation by failing 2 drug screen, had to serve 30 days in the County Jail AND was ordered to take a course for Domestic Violence offenders THROUGH THE DA'S OFFICE. How could they not know he was not eligible to serve???
Must have been too busy prosecuting comic book porn to examine their jury pool...
This is the second Indictment to be legally challenged because of the DA's failure to properly review the indentity/legality of their Grand Jurors.
|
coolhead64
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 03:18 pm |
|
| correct me if i am wrong, but if they throw out this indictment, then they dont get another chance to prosecute him?
|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
I think they get three tries, and this was the second. I am not a lawyer, though, so don't quote me on that.
This case gets older by the minute. The Statute of Limitations runs out for most crimes after 7 years, but that does not apply for murder.
Anybody know for sure?
|
coosabandmom
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 234 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
| that is correct. there are no statutes of limitations for murder.
|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
I think whether his drug charge was a felony or a misdemeanor isn't relevant. A Grand Juror (like a County Commissioner?) should be a pillar of the community.
Grand Juries are supposed to be comprised of "the most experienced, upright and intelligent persons" of the county in which they serve.
I don't think that an "upright" citizen would plead guilty to drug charges, and while on probation have drug screens that were positive for THC and Benzos (nerve meds.)
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
| I'll tell y'all right now, that something stinks about this story...............................I happen to know that the DA's office spent LOTS of time investigating each and every one of the grand jurors on that grand jury, to prevent this very occurence............................................I find it hard to believe that they let a felon slip through, especially one that THEY had records on (not like it's a computer glitch or something like that).......................................................we'll see, and of course I could be wrong................................................................but I believe this is much ado about nothing..........................................
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 07:58 pm |
|
motion dismissed............................ta da
|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 04:00 pm |
|
In today's paper the Foreperson said his Privacy had been violated. What happens in Open Court is not Private. When you serve 30 days in the County Jail for failing two drug screens while on Probation, that is not private. Maybe the Domestic Violence Intervention program is private, it could fall under Mental Health Treatment, but if he pled guilty like the paper said in 2004, that would again make it an open, public record.
I don't really care what his history is, don't know the guy, but I think it would be sloppy for the DA's Office to accept him as a Grand Juror, if they had the opportunity to strike his name from the list.
I thought it was a problem when they let the wrong person serve on the first grand jury that indicted Harper and Reynolds, and I think this will also be a problem, should they appeal. You wouldn'ty want a sitting Judge with that kind of criminal record hearing a case for trial, so why allow a grand juror with that sort of criminal record to have the power to indict people?
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
Native, I agree with you in principle, but not legally....................
remember, with that guy's record, he is eligible to be a police officer, a member of the BAR or a Judge.....................................
edited to say: Unless there is a legal disqualification, I don't think the DA is allowed to pick and choose who serves on the grand jury.........................................
Last edited on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 05:18 pm by romegasir
|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
So would any of our local law enforcement agencies hire someone with that record? I would think not, but maybe I am naive.(?)
If they don't want someone with a record like that arresting people, why have someone with a record like that decide whether or not to prosecute the people who have been arrested? (What if that guy's former drug contacts had charges that were up for review before the grand jury? Do you think he would have recused himself? "Sorry guys, that was one of my dealers a few years ago.")
One misdemeanor might be insignificant, to me, but repeated violations, whether felonies or misdemeanors shows a pattern of behavior and disregard for the law. Using drugs while you are on probation, not once, but twice? They were one week apart, the first was + for THC (for which he was on probation) and the second was for THC and Benzodiazapines. Now the second THC could have been left over from the week before, since it can stay in the body for a while, but he evidently took unprescribed nerve meds after submitting the first dirty screen! He could have faced further charges independent of the probation revocation.
I wouldn't want someone like that deciding my fate. I would hope any Judge, Attorney or Peace Officer who faced charges like those would be removed from the bench, practice or organization.
I remember a County Officer who lost his job years ago after being accused of domestic violence. That wasn't a felony, but someone determined that that officer was no longer in a position to be arresting people. He was let go. If the charges are severe enough to have an officer of the law fired, I would think those same charges would be enough to strike a potential juror.
|
Deaglos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 1898 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 06:28 pm |
|
| Well it does state to be tried by a jury of your peers, so is not a crook a peer to a murderer? or should we just get the manson gang to be the jury?
|
Rdnckgirl1973
Moderator
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2606 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
NativeRoman wrote: So would any of our local law enforcement agencies hire someone with that record? I would think not, but maybe I am naive.(?)
If they don't want someone with a record like that arresting people, why have someone with a record like that decide whether or not to prosecute the people who have been arrested? (What if that guy's former drug contacts had charges that were up for review before the grand jury? Do you think he would have recused himself? "Sorry guys, that was one of my dealers a few years ago.")
One misdemeanor might be insignificant, to me, but repeated violations, whether felonies or misdemeanors shows a pattern of behavior and disregard for the law. Using drugs while you are on probation, not once, but twice? They were one week apart, the first was + for THC (for which he was on probation) and the second was for THC and Benzodiazapines. Now the second THC could have been left over from the week before, since it can stay in the body for a while, but he evidently took unprescribed nerve meds after submitting the first dirty screen! He could have faced further charges independent of the probation revocation.
I wouldn't want someone like that deciding my fate. I would hope any Judge, Attorney or Peace Officer who faced charges like those would be removed from the bench, practice or organization.
I remember a County Officer who lost his job years ago after being accused of domestic violence. That wasn't a felony, but someone determined that that officer was no longer in a position to be arresting people. He was let go. If the charges are severe enough to have an officer of the law fired, I would think those same charges would be enough to strike a potential juror.
So you think that just because 1 person on the Grand Jury has a past then they should throw out the ibdictment against Scott Harper?
|
NativeRoman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
One of the big appeal issues is always the composition of the Grand Jury (not the jury who tries the case, but the Grand Jury who listens to evidence and decides whether to indict someone, or not.) People on Death Row have had verdicts overturned because the Grand Jury didn't have enough minorities, females, young people, etc...
I think if the attorneys appealed the case because one of the Grand Jurors was not eligible to serve, it might be reversed, and yes, an entirely new indictment would be required. This has happened once in this case, already. The wrong person served as a Grand Juror---the summons was for his son, who had the same name, but was a Jr.
They are challenging the composition of this Grand Jury because it was not composed of "the most experienced, upright, and intelligent persons" of our County, as is required by law. O.C.G.A. 15-12-60.
I predicted the first indictment would be disqualified, and I think this one will be, too. That is just my opinion, though. If a person has been convicted of a felony, they cannot serve on Jury duty, unless they have had their rights restored by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. They would automatically be disqualified from being a Grand Juror. This is a gray issue because the fellow didn't plead guilty to felony charges, but to reduced misdemeanor drug charges.
When the DA prosecutes a Death Penalty Case, there is no room for error, because just about every appeal imaginable is going to be raised if he/she is convicted.
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
I predict it won't.................the justices will have to say "you can be a police officer, a lawyer and a judge under state law.........but you can't be a grand juror".........................that ain't happenin'
I predicted the first indictment would be thrown out too................but I also predicted that the next grand jury would undergo scrutiny like none had ever known..............................
under georgia law, a marijuana conviction for misdemeanor is EXACTLY equal to a speeding ticket..............................there is absolutely NO distinction between the two....................................now, you can argue all day that there SHOULD be, but you can't argue at all that there is......................................and there are cops, lawyers and judges, active today, who have had convictions for the same crime............................................................................................................
|
BillT962
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
NativeRoman wrote: So would any of our local law enforcement agencies hire someone with that record? I would think not, but maybe I am naive.(?)
If they don't want someone with a record like that arresting people, why have someone with a record like that decide whether or not to prosecute the people who have been arrested? (What if that guy's former drug contacts had charges that were up for review before the grand jury? Do you think he would have recused himself? "Sorry guys, that was one of my dealers a few years ago.")
One misdemeanor might be insignificant, to me, but repeated violations, whether felonies or misdemeanors shows a pattern of behavior and disregard for the law. Using drugs while you are on probation, not once, but twice? They were one week apart, the first was + for THC (for which he was on probation) and the second was for THC and Benzodiazapines. Now the second THC could have been left over from the week before, since it can stay in the body for a while, but he evidently took unprescribed nerve meds after submitting the first dirty screen! He could have faced further charges independent of the probation revocation.
I wouldn't want someone like that deciding my fate. I would hope any Judge, Attorney or Peace Officer who faced charges like those would be removed from the bench, practice or organization.
I remember a County Officer who lost his job years ago after being accused of domestic violence. That wasn't a felony, but someone determined that that officer was no longer in a position to be arresting people. He was let go. If the charges are severe enough to have an officer of the law fired, I would think those same charges would be enough to strike a potential juror.
A police officer convicted of any crime under the family violence act is no longer allowed to carry a weapon. Therefore, that would make it hard per se for he/she to continue, even if everybody wanted them to. Any felony conviction makes becoming a police officer impossible. Any pattern of misdemeanors that establish a disregard for the law is a deal breaker as well. This one admittedly is a bit subjective.
Grand jurors? Who knows.
|
Current time is 02:07 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
