Has Tony Stewart just committed murder on a race track?

[Bob Vegana.]

My friend and neighbor for many years owned and ran Australia's biggest Sprintcar team and is still heavily involved. I had a long conversation with him, and he is of the opinion the TS has nothing to answer for. He said others within the sport felt the same way.
The actions on the throttle were those of a driver attempting to steer his car clear of the silly bugger approaching him. Sadly for silly bugger, he got clipped by the wing and dragged under the tyre.

Yep, even the handful of speedway guys I've spoken to, reckon the same thing.

There's only so much you can do in a split second.

[BigMuz]

Yeah your mates who drove a speedway car are definitely privy to all possible evidence and analysis.

[Marlin]

Well, if you know how stuff works you're at least in a more educated position to form an opinion.

[hrd]

Well the DA has determined that there is enough evidence that it should go to a grand jury..

No, If the DA had determined there was enough evidence, he would have charged him.

Grand Juries are used to investigate whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all.
Jurors who are not screened for bias.
Defense lawyers are not allowed to be present in the grand jury room and cannot present evidence

It's a kangaroo court with a fancy name, and is only used to investigate the matter and decide if they will lay charges. The DA has determined nothing.

[Bob Vegana.]

Well, if you know how stuff works you're at least in a more educated position to form an opinion.

Exactly.

[BigMuz]

I don't have a problem with the discussion of this by anybody who can firm a coherent argument.

[260BC]

No, If the DA had determined there was enough evidence, he would have charged him.


It's a kangaroo court with a fancy name, and is only used to investigate the matter and decide if they will lay charges. The DA has determined nothing.

Dunno about the 'kangaroo court' tag, the US Grand Jury is the equivalent of a Committal Hearing here. Both have their pro's and cons. Someone has to present evidence to the Grand Jury, who does that is irrelevant in my book as is the question of charges. It would be a tough one for non technical people in a jury to decide on so I'd suspect that it's likely that the average person would think that running over someone requires a trial to sort out liability..

[1uz-zte]

I don't have a problem with the discussion of this by anybody who can firm a coherent argument.

hmm...

[hrd]

Dunno about the 'kangaroo court' tag, the US Grand Jury is the equivalent of a Committal Hearing here. Both have their pro's and cons. Someone has to present evidence to the Grand Jury, who does that is irrelevant in my book as is the question of charges. It would be a tough one for non technical people in a jury to decide on so I'd suspect that it's likely that the average person would think that running over someone requires a trial to sort out liability..

"a kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice"

Grand Jury hearings:
a) deny the right to natural justice
b) deny people their 1st and 5th amendment rights at threat of imprisonment
c) Does not screen for juror bias
d) Operates in total secrecy, with zero transparency, and does not even have to inform the defendant/suspect of proceedings
e) It is run by the prosecution and with no other input other than what the prosecution wants to present to the jury.

It is the very textbook definition of a Kangaroo court.

Our Commital Hearings are conducted by a Magistrate. They are not carried out in secrecy. The defendant and defence lawyers may not only be present, they can cross examine any witnesses. The defendant is granted an opportunity to present their side if they so choose. The process is diametrically opposed to the Grand Jury process and respects all the normally afforded rights of the defendant and witnesses.

[BigMuz]

Well I don't see how what is basically a pre trial can be as big a deal as you say- it's only to determine whether to indict someone right? So they still get a fair trial afterwards?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...jury-work.html

[260BC]

Harry cheated, he looked it up on the intrawebs :D

[hrd]

yeah, what's the big deal? It's only used to decide if there's enough evidence, based on how the prosecutor explains the law to them... So why do they do this (from your link):
"Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like."

Your article goes on to say: "Without a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor has to demonstrate to the trial judge that she has enough evidence to continue with the case." I imagine you'd have to meet those pesky normal rules of evidence in front of a trial judge...

But that's OK, you still get your 'fair trial' later. Of course that jury goes into it knowing that a "Grand" jury has already found that there's enough evidence.

Yeah, sounds good to me. I wonder why no other country in the world does it this way?

[BigMuz]

So what is the goal of the prosecutor in doing this? Just washing his hands of the possibility of the judge not indicting? Won't he then look like a retard at trial when he loses easily?

[hrd]

prosecutor still has discretion to indict or not regardles of the grand jury outcome!

like you say I think the DA wants to wash their hands of the decision either way - it's just as likely there isn't enough evidence and letting the Grand Jury say that is the better political move for him for some reason? I don't know.

[260BC]

It's pretty obvious that it's a tough one as far as liability goes for anyone involved. It makes sense to me to have a Grand Jury involved, after all it's just a procedure that has no ultimate effect but may help clarify the situation. With a Committal Hearing if it's found that there is sufficient evidence to proceed that constitutes a finding which does have an ultimate effect. As I said, there are pros and cons for both, ours is a more formal and certain procedure to trial, with the US system there is more flexibility with less certainty. With both systems there are decisions to be made before any formal proceedings can commence at all so that is common to both.