Perry SC Appointee Indicted for Arson
- Thread starter TheTresLeches
- Start date
yelladawgdem
2,500+ Posts
Can be re-indicted at any time. Simply means that he doesnt think he can get past summary judgement in an Republican Judicial System right now. If a grand jury is presented with the case again, they will not no bill.
judgroybeanbag
500+ Posts
Heretic Horn
250+ Posts
Charges may have been dropped, but he's still a Perry appointee. That's pretty damning in itself.
LonghornLawyer
500+ Posts
The New York Times has a story on this today, and it certainly sounds bad for both the DA and Medina:
johnnyhorn
250+ Posts
The members of the Grand Jury who are speaking out about this should be held in contempt. I have no idea what the facts are in this case, but publicly discussing the proceedings, including writing a letter to the Houston Chronicle discussing the indictment, is way out of line and defeats the secrecy protection afforded by the Grand Jury system.
NameAlreadyInUse
500+ Posts
while I agree with johnnyhorn, I'm also not against the civil disobedience the jurors are enacting here if it turns out the dropped charges are politically motivated. We're not getting the whole story here, but so far I'm smelling a rat. I think if I were a juror I might be speaking out on this as well.
Summerof79
2,500+ Posts
So.... political dirty dealing should be allowed? Grand Jurors should not be able to every at any point identify the dirty dealings of the DA in refusing to prosecute people because they happen to have an (R) behind their name?
Without the Grand Juror's coming forward the whole thing just disappears with a political pat on the back....
Medina is the same judge who paid himself $57,000 out of his campiagn coffers to reimburse himself for his mileage? The Link
Without the Grand Juror's coming forward the whole thing just disappears with a political pat on the back....
Medina is the same judge who paid himself $57,000 out of his campiagn coffers to reimburse himself for his mileage? The Link
johnnyhorn
250+ Posts
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
NameAlreadyInUse
500+ Posts
johnnyhorn
250+ Posts
NAIU,
Grand Juries exist to determine whether there is probable cause sufficent to pursue criminal prosecution. In theory, they are a check on the State's prosectorial powers, so that prosecutors do not bring felony cases to trial without a group of citizens first making a determination that probable cause exists.
Grand juries are also very important in cases where it is believed that a group of citizens should make the determination whether a possible crime is prosecuted. For example, if a homeowner shoots and kills a burglar, the shooting will probably be referred to a grand jury without charges, and typically a grand jury no bills such cases. Because of the seriousness of the action, one citizen taking the life of another, a group of citizens should look at the evidence and determine whether criminal prosecution should be pursued. However, that does not mean that the DA or ADA presenting the case personally believes it should be pursued. In that case, it avoids the appearance of impropriety, that a prosecutor is not pursuing a crime which a group of citizens finds worth of prosecution.
Also, in cases involving elected officials, like this one, a grand jury will usually make the determination to prosecute, again to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The District Attorney is an elected official and if it was left to his sole discretion whether to pursue prosecutions against other elected officials, many people would find politics behind every criminal prosecution or dismissal. There have been some very weak cases taken to trial because of a grand jury indictment, which a DA would likely not have pursued if it was solely up to his or her discretion.
I would hold off any making any judgments as to whether the dismissal is politically motivated. As I said above, once an indictment is issued, the State loses quite a bit of investigative tools, and in that situation, indicting too early could be a major benefit to a defendant.
Grand Juries exist to determine whether there is probable cause sufficent to pursue criminal prosecution. In theory, they are a check on the State's prosectorial powers, so that prosecutors do not bring felony cases to trial without a group of citizens first making a determination that probable cause exists.
Grand juries are also very important in cases where it is believed that a group of citizens should make the determination whether a possible crime is prosecuted. For example, if a homeowner shoots and kills a burglar, the shooting will probably be referred to a grand jury without charges, and typically a grand jury no bills such cases. Because of the seriousness of the action, one citizen taking the life of another, a group of citizens should look at the evidence and determine whether criminal prosecution should be pursued. However, that does not mean that the DA or ADA presenting the case personally believes it should be pursued. In that case, it avoids the appearance of impropriety, that a prosecutor is not pursuing a crime which a group of citizens finds worth of prosecution.
Also, in cases involving elected officials, like this one, a grand jury will usually make the determination to prosecute, again to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The District Attorney is an elected official and if it was left to his sole discretion whether to pursue prosecutions against other elected officials, many people would find politics behind every criminal prosecution or dismissal. There have been some very weak cases taken to trial because of a grand jury indictment, which a DA would likely not have pursued if it was solely up to his or her discretion.
I would hold off any making any judgments as to whether the dismissal is politically motivated. As I said above, once an indictment is issued, the State loses quite a bit of investigative tools, and in that situation, indicting too early could be a major benefit to a defendant.
johnnyhorn
250+ Posts
Also, NAIU, presenting cases to grand juries can sometimes take several weeks or months. I imagine that in this case, the prosecutors are trying to get every financial record they can get there hands on to determine if burning his own home was really a financial benefit to Medina. There is also going to be a lot of physical evidence. I am assuming, since no one has talked about any witnesses, that no one actually saw someone start the fire. The prosecutors may also be looking for witnesses who may know something, but are sympathetic to the Medinas. Such a witness would not have to talk to law enforcement, and without the ability to call that witness before a grand jury, the prosecutors would have no idea what that witness would say. If someone is holding out on such evidence, you want to get them in front of a grand jury.
Then again, it may have just been a real crap case where there is no physical evidence of arson, and no motive for the Medinas to burn their own house down.
In short, I do not know what is going on. But I can certainly think of many non-poltical reasons why it may have been dismissed.
Then again, it may have just been a real crap case where there is no physical evidence of arson, and no motive for the Medinas to burn their own house down.
In short, I do not know what is going on. But I can certainly think of many non-poltical reasons why it may have been dismissed.
Houstonian
< 25 Posts
Medina knows how the law works in Texas. He believes he is the law. And he's unfortunately right.
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
Houstonian
< 25 Posts
It is my opinion, aggy. I support it through reason (and not sarcasm) thusly:
He is one of 12 Republican justices on the Texas Supreme Court.
In the Texas Supreme Court from 1998 to 2005, Defendants win 87% with opinion. Walmart is a perfect 12 for 12. Read Professor Dave Anderson's article "Judicial Tort Reform in Texas" for more.
With such a unanimity on the Court comprised of members sharing Justice Medina's ideology, he is the law.
That unusual legal measures are undertaken on his behalf in a criminal matter by a disgraced criminal DA bolsters this perception and opinion.
That how I formed my opinion.
Sarcasm, BTW, is an unenviable characteristic in an adult.
He is one of 12 Republican justices on the Texas Supreme Court.
In the Texas Supreme Court from 1998 to 2005, Defendants win 87% with opinion. Walmart is a perfect 12 for 12. Read Professor Dave Anderson's article "Judicial Tort Reform in Texas" for more.
With such a unanimity on the Court comprised of members sharing Justice Medina's ideology, he is the law.
That unusual legal measures are undertaken on his behalf in a criminal matter by a disgraced criminal DA bolsters this perception and opinion.
That how I formed my opinion.
Sarcasm, BTW, is an unenviable characteristic in an adult.
HornGrandioso
500+ Posts
Everyone here is missing the point and the real tragedy. Our SC Justices are so underpaid, they're having to commit insurance fraud just to get by.
They need a raise!
They need a raise!
A
austintexas
Guest
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-ULM *
Sat, Sep 21 • 7:00 PM on ESPN+/SECN+
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
2024 Schedules
