Submitted by jcw10489 t3_1277dky in explainlikeimfive
owmyfreakingeyes t1_jed4tb2 wrote
Reply to comment by V1per41 in eli5 What does “indicted” mean? by jcw10489
An arrest warrant just means that a person can be arrested, that is, brought in by police against their will for short term holding and questioning. Many people are released from an arrest with no charges being brought. The warrant is essentially saying there is at least enough evidence to take a closer look at this person.
An indictment would be the next step, or more commonly in the case of most state charges and federal misdemeanors a prosecutor just makes a decision to bring criminal charges. This step is typically saying that there is significant evidence and in practice it typically means that the prosecution is confident they will win. Federal indictments result in a conviction about 95% of the time.
[deleted] t1_jedk4ep wrote
[deleted]
Zagrycha t1_jedkk7g wrote
yeah you could theoretically be called for grand jury duty. You may look into regular jury duty selection if curious since it'll answer your question-- basically lots and lots of lawyers questioning jury people and dismissing those they think are too biased etc until they have the right amount of people.
Welpe t1_jedqpll wrote
Grand Jury is definitely more interesting than normal jury duty, I’ll say that. Potentially way more traumatic though. Though for cases like this it wouldn’t be a normal grand jury, who are usually empaneled to a good amount of cases over a week, two week, sometimes multiple months in certain jurisdiction. I’m pretty sure for something this big the grand jury was only empaneled for this specifically.
Note that for grand juries the person being accused doesn’t get representation, nor is there a judge. The DA leads the proceedings. That’s why you hear things like “You could indict a ham sandwich”. Generally speaking, a committed DA can close to always get an indictment. Though with cases like this with major political ramifications I doubt there was much bias involved. Getting the indictment only for him to be found not guilty at trial because you overplayed your hand could be career ending. They honestly do want insight into how a jury will see the evidence, what questions they have about it, etc. It would be profoundly foolish to waste the opportunity on just getting an indictment with weak evidence.
Zagrycha t1_jeferkv wrote
I agree that the reason grand jury has such a high indictment rare is definitely related to the fact they probably won't call for grand jury without evidence to cause a high indictment rate.
Apollyom t1_jedrl2m wrote
The Thing about grand jury's are that they are given almost unlimited investigative power, via the ability to subpoena people and things.
RightioThen t1_jedclzz wrote
Is this not a NY state indictment though?
owmyfreakingeyes t1_jedd927 wrote
It is. I don't know about New York specifically, but state/county prosecutors often have the option to defer to a grand jury and it tends to be done in high profile cases or situations where the prosecutor wants distance or cover from the decision to charge or not to charge.
It's less common for state charges and the process varies more by jurisdiction so the conviction statistics aren't as reliable as the federal ones.
thelanoyo t1_jedfq99 wrote
Nobody wants to be the guy to press charges against a high profile anybody. Let the grand jury do it so that prosecutors can use them as a scape goat basically.
M3rr1lin t1_jedis36 wrote
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a scape goat. It’s intended to bring a level of impartiality which I think is a good thing. I’m general I think they should be used more often , but especially in cases where it can be high profile.
Welpe t1_jedqx69 wrote
A case this high profile not even a grand jury would function as a scapegoat. If they got the indictment but not the conviction because they overplayed the evidence they had…let’s just say it would not be a positive career move. They absolutely want the opinion of the grand jury on the evidence they have and playing fast and loose with bias to get the indictment with weak evidence would be self-destructive.
FrigginSavage t1_jedi8qy wrote
why did the warrant part get skipped in this case?
TuckerMouse t1_jedkidq wrote
Likely because they know where he is, and he isn’t going to be able to disappear easily. Too high profile, and frankly too …loud? to be able to go unnoticed.
foxpaws42 t1_jedkvzi wrote
Dunno if you're referring to a search warrant or arrest warrant; I'll assume the latter.
Broadly speaking, arrest warrants are issued because many suspects flee and hide instead of choosing to face justice, so the police has to arrest them to prevent that from happening.
In cases where the suspect is deemed unlikely to flee (or be unsuccessful at hiding) the justice system sometimes allows them to surrender on their own to face arraignment.
Additional factors: Was the crime violent, or white collar? Is the person sufficiently high-profile enough that offering a voluntary surrender is (politically and socially) preferable to arresting them at their home?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments