Prosecution by Information

[Friendsplacect]

I am a little bit confused. All Felonies shall be prosecuted by Information is what it states in the rules.

I looked at a court file where the charge was Robbery in the 2nd degree. There was no Information filed in the case file, the only thing in there was a UAR (Uniform Arrest Report).
Am I missing something? I thought that an information would be filed before prosecution?
Are they going to decide to file one when it goes to trial? Is there an actual complaint if there is no information filed?
Am I wrong here I feel clueless at this point.

Also on a side note there was a psychiatric evaluation involved and according to their rules a copy of the report shall be furnished to the defendant within five days after the receipt thereof of the prosecuting attorney.
When I brought this up to the Attorney representing my friend she said "They never give you that, thats the States property".
I am finding that the Prosecution breaks more rules than anything else and Court Files are filled with 2 or 3 pieces of paper.

[trooper2ls]

With that lack of evidence I'm very suprised and disappointed that it got by the Grand Jury. Unless the rules are different in other states that I'm not familiar with.. the Grand Jury has to vote and approve all felony charges before they can be tried.

But of course there is no "defense" in the Grand Jury presentation of a case so the cops and prosecutor could have just lied to them to get their vote. It happens all too often. When I served on one in Georgia.. I had to ask all sorts of questions that they didn't like answering .. but had to. Usually the GJ presentation is a "show" to make it look like an open and shut case.

..J

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

There are no grand juries in many states, at least one by my own personal experience. There is just a "preliminary hearing" by a judge.

Maybe a grand jury has to be demanded. It's is a constitutional right...um?

As far as lack of information, this is so commonplace that a real information which actually stated a cause of action would be the oddity.

I would estimate that a good 50% of all jail time is based on absolutely nothing. Thats what I personally saw. I mean, NOTHING, no charge, just a title of offense, no allegations that state the offense itself.

Kind of like 9-11, a big show, smoke and mirrors.

[trooper2ls]

Wow... I'm glad I domicile in a state that has them.. No Grand Jury... talk about Mickey Mouse court...!!

Makes one want to review your state laws before setting down roots there.

..J

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

There are no grand juries in many states, at least one by my own personal experience. There is just a "preliminary hearing" by a judge.

Maybe a grand jury has to be demanded. It's is a constitutional right...um?

As far as lack of information, this is so commonplace that a real information which actually stated a cause of action would be the oddity.

I would estimate that a good 50% of all jail time is based on absolutely nothing. Thats what I personally saw. I mean, NOTHING, no charge, just a title of offense, no allegations that state the offense itself.

Kind of like 9-11, a big show, smoke and mirrors.

In my State according to the rule book the only time you need a grand jury indictment is when there is posibility of death or life in prison.
I asked the Attorney for the defendant what she thought the legislative intent was for Burglary in the second degree, she was standing next to one of her attorney friends and they both just looked at me bug eyed. After stumbling on some words she stated "well thats when someone breaks into your house" wrong answer. Thats when I got an even bigger feeling that this Court System is just an illusion and you have salesmen/politicians that sell your freedom up the river through coercive fear tactics.

Speaking of coercion , The prosecutor via the defense attorney is threatening to put the defendant away for 30 days for her "violation Of Probation" if she doesnt take the plea deal she is going to prison. Well hell thats against the law;

Sec. 53a-192. Coercion: Class A misdemeanor or class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of coercion when he compels or induces another person to engage in conduct which such other person has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which such other person has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in such other person a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: (1) Commit any criminal offense; or (2) accuse any person of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair any person's credit or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.

(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution based on subdivision (2), (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of this section that the actor believed the accusation or secret to be true or the proposed official action justified and that his purpose was limited to compelling the other person to behave in a way reasonably related to the circumstances which were the subject of the accusation, exposure or proposed official action, as by desisting from further misbehavior or making good a wrong done.

(c) Coercion is a class A misdemeanor except, if the threat is to commit a felony, coercion is a class D felony.

And threatening;

Sec. 53a-61aa. Threatening in the first degree: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the first degree when such person (1) (A) threatens to commit any crime involving the use of a hazardous substance with the intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, evacuation or inconvenience, or (2) (A) threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such evacuation or inconvenience.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "hazardous substance" means any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter which, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health.

(c) Threatening in the first degree is a class D felony.

(Nov. 15 Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-2, S. 7, 9; P.A. 02-97, S. 15; P.A. 03-22, S. 1.)

History: Nov. 15 Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-2 effective January 1, 2002; P.A. 02-97 amended Subsec. (a) to delete in Subdivs. (1) and (2) provisions re threatening to commit a crime of violence; P.A. 03-22 amended Subsec. (a) by designating existing elements of crime as Subdiv. (1), redesignating existing Subdivs. (1) and (2) as Subparas. (A) and (B), respectively, and adding new Subdiv. (2) to restore provisions re threatening to commit a crime of violence with the intent to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience and threatening to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such evacuation or inconvenience.

(Return to
Chapter Table of Contents) (Return to
List of Chapters) (Return to
List of Titles)


Sec. 53a-62. Threatening in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when: (1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury, (2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or (3) such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.

(b) Threatening in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Friendsplacect

I am a little bit confused. All Felonies shall be prosecuted by Information is what it states in the rules.

I looked at a court file where the charge was Robbery in the 2nd degree. There was no Information filed in the case file, the only thing in there was a UAR (Uniform Arrest Report).
Am I missing something? I thought that an information would be filed before prosecution?

Never use a government-issued ID for identification purposes. That identifies you as the enemy "hoarding" gold in 1933 and subsequently it is all the Information needed to proceed.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Friendsplacect]

Its worse than I thought even in a Murder case no Grand Jury is required;

Sec. 54-45. When grand jury is required. Selecting grand jury. Alternate grand jurors. (a) The Superior Court may, when necessary, order a grand jury of eighteen electors of the judicial district where said court is sitting to be summoned, impaneled and sworn to inquire after and present such offenses as are cognizable by said court. Said court may, in its discretion, order one or two additional electors to be added to the grand jury as alternate grand jurors. Such alternate jurors shall be sworn separately from those constituting the regular panel and shall not counsel or confer with members of the regular panel as to any matters before the grand jury unless they become a part of the regular panel as hereinafter provided. They shall attend the sessions of the grand jury and shall be seated with or near the members of the regular panel, with equal opportunity to see and hear all matters adduced in the proceedings. If for any reason a grand juror is unable to further perform his duty, the court may excuse him and, if any grand juror is so excused or dies, the court may order that the alternate juror or, if more than one, that one who is designated by lot drawn by the clerk of the Superior Court, shall become a part of the regular panel and the inquiry shall then proceed as though such grand juror had been a member of the regular panel from the beginning of the inquiry.

(b) No person shall be put to plea or held to trial for any crime the punishment of which may be death or imprisonment for life, charged by the state before May 26, 1983, unless an indictment has been found against him for such crime by a grand jury legally impaneled and sworn, and no bill shall be presented by any grand jury unless at least twelve of the jurors agree to it.

[Neilzinno]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

There are no grand juries in many states, at least one by my own personal experience. There is just a "preliminary hearing" by a judge.

Maybe a grand jury has to be demanded. It's is a constitutional right...um?

As far as lack of information, this is so commonplace that a real information which actually stated a cause of action would be the oddity.

I would estimate that a good 50% of all jail time is based on absolutely nothing. Thats what I personally saw. I mean, NOTHING, no charge, just a title of offense, no allegations that state the offense itself.

Kind of like 9-11, a big show, smoke and mirrors.

The Bill of Rights, in which you'll find the right to be accused only by a Grand Jury, is only a limitation on the Federal Government, not the State governments. Granted, over time many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" to apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to indictment by Grand Jury has yet to be incorporated - thus state prosecutorial agencies are free to use accusatory instruments other than a grand jury indictment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

But of course there is no "defense" in the Grand Jury presentation of a case so the cops and prosecutor could have just lied to them to get their vote.

A defendant had pushed this issue once, of an attempt to examine witnesses going before a Grand Jury. Mc Kean laid out the difficulties in the cite.The way I understand, Grand Juries will represent the People prosecuting Common Law crimes and the information would be the government prosecuting statutory violations.

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

M'Kean, Chief Justice.

Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

A defendant had pushed this issue once, of an attempt to examine witnesses going before a Grand Jury. Mc Kean laid out the difficulties in the cite.The way I understand, Grand Juries will represent the People prosecuting Common Law crimes and the information would be the government prosecuting statutory violations.

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

M'Kean, Chief Justice.

Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.

maybe I dont understand the above, but it doesnt make any sense, and contradicts standard practice today. In a preliminary hearing (dont know about a grand ury) witnesses are neccesarily examined.

In fact, the rules of procedure require that the testimony given at that state of the process agree with the initial affidavits.

Anything in excess is inadmissible, and any failure to testify strikes that portion of the charging affidavit.

This has nothing to do with offering a defense- just examination of the witnesses.