spirited disagreement with someone sincere. bike or motorcycle

Yes. With u maddog. Have u ever kiss a real frog?

Turn down the lights and have a threesum with him and his stuff dog. Lmao!

centuries

Well whether I'm right or wrong,I'm still all for making adjustment How ever big or small to our legal system.

Wrap

Where I found some sunken treasure, and then..

Reality TV.
a House or Mansion

Yes. Have you ever thrown a glass of water in someone face because they were being a jerk?

Light

district attorney

@Maddog:where I placed the arrows. Thanks!

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.

>>>>There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. (The first is juror bias): Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The (second is prosecutorial bias): Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(The third possible explanation) is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.

“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The explanations aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s possible, for example, that the evidence against Wilson was relatively weak, but that jurors were also more likely than normal to give him the benefit of the doubt. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch has said he plans to release the evidence collected in the case, which would give the public a chance to evaluate whether justice was served here. But beyond Ferguson, we won’t know without better data why grand juries are so reluctant to indict police officers.

@Maddog no we don't need a total overhaul. Also I think you got your estimate wrong.

To you Leigh no matter how u want to spin it,it is still a bunch of random civilian selected to make a decision in court. If I'm to accept what your saying,then that mean I'm able to be a jury in a court case, just by being a citizen,a registered voter,and the mere fact that I was selected solely on the premise that I am not begin biase towards any one race,gender,ect. And that I may or may not be able to understand legal concept and complex cases. Which I think proves my point. I'm still a random civilian call to do a job. Btw its like sayn orange juice isn't good for you because it's not in its original former state. Really? But Like I said let's just agree to disagree.

I wasn't referring to what u were sayn Leigh,more to what mad dog asked me.

@ Maddog:I'm not saying all that,I'm just saying it needs a bit off makeover. For a lack of a better word. whether it happens today,tomorrow,or years from now. It wont happen if we just accept what is. It's up to us citizens and the government to make those changes.

@Maddog: because at this time I don't have any clear cut alternative to give or speak of,but maybe giving some time I will. To be honest I'm just going off what I see,hear,and feel. It doesn't make me right or wrong. Lol! Hope I'm using clear cut correctly in a sentence. If not I apologize.

Evidence not presented at trial:
At the June 1994 grand jury hearing, Ross Cutlery provided store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (305 mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds.[5] The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after discovering that store employees had sold their story to The National Enquirer for $12,500.[5] The knife was later collected from Simpson's residence by his attorneys who presented it to Judge Ito and subsequently was sealed in a manila envelope to be opened only if brought up at trial. It turned out not to be the murder weapon because tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife indicating the knife had never been used. The police "searched" OJ's Rockingham estate 3 times and couldn't find this knife. OJ told the attorneys exactly where it was in the house and it was promptly recovered.[48]
Jill Shively testified to the 1994 grand jury that she saw a white Ford Bronco speeding away from Bundy Drive, in such a hurry that it almost collided with another car at an intersection.[5] She talked to the television show Hard Copy for $5,000, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial.[5]
A women's shelter, Sojourn, received a call from Nicole Brown four days prior to the murders saying that she was scared of her ex-husband, whom she believed was stalking her.[5] The prosecution did not present this in court because they thought that Judge Ito would rule the evidence to be hearsay.[5] In addition, friends and family indicated that Nicole Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her.[5] She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. Her friends Faye Resnick and Cynthia Shahian said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.[5]
Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. A jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled to Grier that he "didn't mean to do it", after which Grier had urged Simpson to come clean.[5] Ito ruled that the evidence was hearsay and could not be allowed in court.[5]
A few months before the murders in 1994, Simpson completed a film pilot for Frogmen, an adventure series which he starred in. Although the prosecution investigated reports that Simpson, who played the leader of a group of former United States Navy SEALs, received "a fair amount of" military training—including use of a knife—for Frogmen, and there is a scene in which he holds a knife to the throat of a woman, it was not introduced as evidence during the trial.[49]

Now u should know better than that. There are plenty of cases where most of the evidence don't reach the court rooms. When I come up with one ill be sure to post. It.