Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

[KaGee]

Fox News' weekly poll last week:<br />

<br />With possible indictments in the CIA leak investigation in the news, the poll asked how indictments are interpreted — does being indicted mean the person is guilty? By a slim 43 percent plurality Americans say yes, when they hear someone has been indicted that usually makes them think the person broke the law. Almost as many disagree (39 percent), and 12 percent say it “depends.”

Guess we can throw out "innocent until proven guilty" now.

 

[KeltonKrew]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

where have you been KaGee....it's been like that for years!

 

[KaGee]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Originally posted by KeltonKrew:<br /> where have you been KaGee....it's been like that for years!

Can mob lynchings be far behind??

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Only on Republican indictments... All kidding aside, unfortunately alot of people jump to that conclusion...If you are innocent, then why were you arrested/indicted? A record of an arrest/indictment stays with you even if you are found innocent or I should say "Not Guilty". It's not a good thing, and only the individual him/herself can stop that sort of thinking when it comes to presumption of guilt, hopefully the courts will do their job & keep it honest.....JK

 

[knobby]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Guess we can throw out "innocent until proven guilty" now. [/QB]

Naw, they usually indict people who are not guilty......DA....

 

[txswinner]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Nope, but they got a better chance of being guilty than those not indicted like Cheney or Rove!!!!!

 

[txswinner]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Oh yeah and Ronnie Earl got the goods on Mr. Delay down in Texas. Wow this sounds like the ole Nixon era.

 

[PW2]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

I think you all are reading too much into that. An indictment is a serious thing, and most people would hope that a prosecutor would not treat them frivolously, and have a reasonable reason to believe a crime was committed, and the indicted person was responsible for it.<br /><br />Most people understand our legal process, and know that a prosecutor has to "prove" his case in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And most people understand that an aquittal does not necessarily mean "innocent" but it can just as easily mean "not proven".<br /><br />But for people automatically to think someone who is indicted is "innocent" is a slam on the judicial system and prosecutors generally. "Not yet proven" is more realistic.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

43% is still less than half - so don't throw it out just yet. Besides which, that don't mean you can't be impartial on a jury. Just means you expect to hear evidence of guilt, which is why there's a trial anyway.<br /><br />But I bet being indicted really sucks!! <br /><br />Interesting that DeLay believes he can't get a fair trial in Austin because of his involvement in gerrymandering. Really, he thinks they don't like him there!

 

[KaGee]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Interesting that DeLay believes he can't get a fair trial in Austin because of his involvement in gerrymandering. Really, he thinks they don't like him there!

Ya think!

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> I think you all are reading too much into that. An indictment is a serious thing, and most people would hope that a prosecutor would not treat them frivolously, and have a reasonable reason to believe a crime was committed, and the indicted person was responsible for it.<br /><br />Most people understand our legal process, and know that a prosecutor has to "prove" his case in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And most people understand that an aquittal does not necessarily mean "innocent" but it can just as easily mean "not proven".<br /><br />But for people automatically to think someone who is indicted is "innocent" is a slam on the judicial system and prosecutors generally. "Not yet proven" is more realistic.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I will even go out on a limb here and guestimate that 99% of those indicted are actually convicted.

 

[PW2]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

I wouldn't go so far as to say 99 % are convicted.<br /><br />It's not, nor should it be, an easy burden to "prove" someone's guilt---and while some may actually be "innocent", a good share of those that get off do so because it is not "proven"--which is as it should be.<br /><br />Still and all, being indicted can't be a fun thing.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Well, I knew we couldn't conpletely agree- you being a flaming lib and me being an independent with a conservative twist. But still, we came close!<br />Cheers

 

[pjc]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Prosecutors do have agendas. 'specially New York state atty. gen. Spizer? These DHs are pols with aspirations. Much like Jonny boy Kerry shooting video of himself in Vietnam for his political future. State Ag's, and the like posture by, in some cases, creating indictments that place these people in the headlines. <br /><br />Examples..Spizer taking down an investment house in Wisconsin..."Strong Funds"..no charges ever filed but Spizer won accolades. Next up Waukesha County Wisconsin, District Attorney Paul Bucher, indites Mark chimura on sex assault charges. Chimura walks, Bucher goes through the motions as he will run for WI state AG next election. <br /><br />These pols do this crap to the expense and detriment of the public as a whole. But, the selfish *******s wish to further their political career at any cost.<br /><br />Thus, in closing Gentle Persons, yep, an indictment could be guilty, or merely a pol looking to build his/her stature at the expense of the public.

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

I thought grand juries indicted, not prosecutors? A prosecutor may want to indict, but without the OK of the grand jury, they can't do squat. Is this correct? I really don't know how the process works all that well.

 

[bubbakat]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

mrbscott19 said<br /><br />

thought grand juries indicted, not prosecutors? A prosecutor may want to indict, but without the OK of the grand jury, they can't do squat. Is this correct? I really don't know how the process works all that well.<br />

You have it right on here. You can indict a ham sandwich for not tasting good but you can't prove it didn't. So an indictment does not mean guilty.<br /> No 99% are not found guilty. The person or persons presenting the info to the grand jury doesn't have to prove their case they just have to present enough evidence to get an indictment.<br /> I have seen many persons go free after an indictment because later on down the road during the process the prosecutor finds he can't prove his case.<br />Their record can be expunged out of the system if they want to go back through the courts to do it.<br />Which I would.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Only the Grand Jury can hand up an indictment....But I've heard it said that a good prosecuter can get a ham sandwich indicted.....JK

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

Now I'm all hungry.... ...JK

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Does Indictment Really Mean Guilty?

during a grand jury investigation leading to an indictment there is usually only prosecutorial evidence handed to the jury. if the jury decides the prosecutorial evidence warrents a trial they hand an indictment. from there it goes along the same lines as most other trial by juries. but sometimes the case is difficult and gets dropped, other times a guilty verdict and yet others the prosecutor gets zapped. so in Libby's case we shall see, myself I hope the prosecutor is wrong, if he is right means a whole dung heap has been shoveled.