[Yoda]

Anybody here with much knowledge/experience with law?

Specifically I would like to understand the role of grand jury and what it means when a case does/does not go to the grand jury.

In 2000 I shot my abusive boyfriend in self defense and he died. I had witnesses who had heard him threaten to kill me as well as several assault charges/restraining order and such and pictures of some of my injuries. So the state trooper who investigated told me that he understood why I did what I did. The trooper told me the prosecuting attorney did not see any reason to file charges and they would present the case to the grand jury.

Fast forward to 2010. I am filming with Discovery Studios about my hoarding. The producer is interested in the domestic violence and wonder if that played a role in my hoarding. The studio's attorney was checking out the records about me and my boyfriend. This week when I was talking to the producer he mentioned that my case had never gone to the grand jury. I don't understand why a case would or would not go to grand jury. Or what the implications of that would be. I know that there is no statute of limitations. I am not worried that I would be found guilty. But my dead BF's brother is an attorney and after my BF died his brother sent word to me that even if I was not guilty and would not be found guilty of any crime he would like to see me prosecuted so that I would have to spend a large amount of money to hire a defense attorney. Two years ago he ran for prosecuting attorney but lost by ~400 votes. I think it would be conflict of interest if he were to try to indict me plus I would call the brother attorney as a witness because I had told him on the phone about the violence and asked for his advice.

So I just am curious what all this means. The producer seemed to think that if the case did not go to grand jury that would influence how indictment could later be filed but I don't know if that is accurate.

In 1984 I was witness to a shooting that resulted in death. I know that at that time the case did go to grand jury and no charges were filed. Then about twelve or thirteen years later they elected a new prosecuting attorney in the county and the family of the dead guy said they did not think the case had been handled appropriately and I was asked to talk to the grand jury about what I knew. So that case went to grand jury twice with no indictment. Now I wonder why my case never did go to grand jury.

Anyone here have any idea about this?

Not asking for legal advice, just wondering how the system works and in general what does this scenario mean.

I'm in a similar predicament concerning a story I was asked to write for a research book and some less than reputable things I did in the past. If the case had gone to trial and you were proven innocent, you would have been completely exonerated of the accusations. Because of double jeopardy, you could not be charged again for the same crime. Since it did not go to trial and there is no statue of limitations, however, you could still be indicted for the charges if new evidence arises. So if you were to discuss the details of the crime in public, you could say something that would be considered evidence that is admissible in the court of law and indicted for the crime.

[Perna]

A grand jury is just a bunch of people who are sworn in and look to see if there is enough evidence for a trial. I would think some of whether a grand jury would happen or not would be cost? If no one on your abusive boyfriend's side of the fence wants to charge you, the only one's who would/could would be the state/locality and, in a relatively clear-cut case like yours, who would want to? They'd first have to decide if it was worth it and then, if yes, they'd have a trial. But why bother deciding if it's worth it if no one cares?

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Yoda

my dead BF's brother is an attorney and after my BF died his brother sent word to me that even if I was not guilty and would not be found guilty of any crime he would like to see me prosecuted so that I would have to spend a large amount of money to hire a defense attorney.

Do you have physical evidence of this?

I spent several weeks as a grand juror once. Practices probably vary from place to place. District attorneys only bring cases to the grand jury if they think they can get an indictment and probable conviction. In my jurisdiction I thought that there was a great deal of responsibility displayed by the people in the legal system, but indictment by the grand jury was fairly routinely granted unless there was something really wrong with the prosecution's case. Once indicted, the matter must then go to trial.

In California recently they seem to have re-introduced the case of Roman Polanski, so it seems there is not much of a limit on the time they can wait to do that.

This article is about Federal Grand Juries. Your state laws may vary.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

That your case was never brought before a grand jury is simply a point of interest. Even if your case had been before a grand jury and the grand jury had refused to return an indictment (A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury.), as the article points out, Double jeopardy (the jeopardy in which a defendant is placed by a second prosecution for the same offense or crime; prohibited by the U.S. Constitution) does not apply to the grand jury. So, theoretically, at some point a second grand jury could be called to consider your case.

Since the original prosecuting attorney did not even present the case to a grand jury, I would expect at the least some new, compelling evidence would be needed before a second grand jury would be called.

[bebop]

if it is a case of self defense and the prosecuting attorney said there was no reason to file charges then it would not go to the grand jury.