Work has dropped me into the painful funhouse that is a non-lawyer’s trying to understand police procedure and legalese, so I was hoping that I could trouble JJack or one of our other legal/LEO minds here for guidance, either to shed some light or point me in the direction of a . Two questions I have in particular:
Are there pretrial motions/hearings before a grand jury trial during which a judge can rule DNA evidence inadmissible? I seem only to be able to find instances of evidence being ruled inadmissible after a g.j. has issued an indictment, during the pretrial hearings in the weeks leading up to the actual trial.
Does anybody know what kind of process is in place for the questioning of a teen–a 12-year-old, to be precise–suspected of murder in Vermont. The kind of thing I’m getting at is how are the parents handled? Are they informed, or can the police simply pull the kid out of school and bring her down to the station without notifying anybody? Are there special precautions or procedures that must be taken?
Any aid is greatly appreciated, and, in compensation, I offer you the Ben Franklin effect: You get to like me a little more, or dislike me a little less, than you already do.
Caveat: I’m not a practicing criminal lawyer and these questions seem pretty jurisdiction-specific. If I wasn’t swamped I’d take a little time and hop on LEXIS, but I’m swamped at the moment. Question 1 seems to ask whether the rules of evidence strictly apply to a grand-jury proceeding and I don’t know the answer to that for Vermont, but if the rules of evidence govern, then they would also govern the admissibility of expert testimony, and if they apply there has to be a way to move something into evidence or challenge admissibility.
The flip side to that is, even if the rules technically apply, as a practical matter, someone has to be in a position to object to the evidence and IIRC most grand jury proceedings are pretty much run by the prosecutor without defense participation except as to privilege claims.
If you are doing a search the big case on admissibility of expert testimony in federal court is:
and the question is whether the is a Daubert hearing procedure or equivalent state court procedure exists for grand juries. Because the rules of evidence don’t govern grand jury proceedings in federal proceedings I doubt there is such a thing in federal grand juries I would presume.
Fed R Evid 1101 states in federal court the rules of evidence don’t apply in grand jury proceedings except with respect to privilege claims.
I don’t have any idea with respect to question 2 and I’d defer on question 1 to any lawyer who actually practices criminal law.
Take a look at the Daubert Standard, it could give you some ideas on how to get DNA evidence deemed inadmissible.
As far as questioning minors, the law seems murky on this. I would always tell someone to stay mum until legal counsel is present, but in the case of young kids, a strong argument could be made to suppress any testimony due to inability to comprehend the youth’s civil rights even if they are explained to him/her.
SMH, I seem to recall from law school 100 years ago that the prosecutor pretty much gets to feed the grand jury what ever it wants and they get to make the decision as to whether there’s enough to go forward in a secret proceeding and that evidence and its admissibility only gets sorted out later by a judge in open court in an adversary proceeding. I think that’s the bottom line on question one, unless there are procedures I’m not aware of locally to make a special challenge. That’s entirely possible, however.
When a prosecutor presents a case to the Grand Jury, it’s simply a probable cause hearing. There is no defense present. When I go before the GJ, or DA types the indictment, I explain the facts and evidence to the GJ, they will ask me questions, then we are done. Then they rule shortly thereafter, granting a True Bill (prosecution) or a No True Bill (prosecution declined).
If a True Bill is granted, warrants are issued, the suspect is arrested. Then the court appearances start. THIS is when discovery starts, and the defense can make motions to suppress the state’s evidence. But this is AFTER the suspect is arrested. The process is similar with adults and juveniles, esp. On a homicide case.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
When a prosecutor presents a case to the Grand Jury, it’s simply a probable cause hearing. There is no defense present. When I go before the GJ, or DA types the indictment, I explain the facts and evidence to the GJ, they will ask me questions, then we are done. Then they rule shortly thereafter, granting a True Bill (prosecution) or a No True Bill (prosecution declined).
If a True Bill is granted, warrants are issued, the suspect is arrested. Then the court appearances start. THIS is when discovery starts, and the defense can make motions to suppress the state’s evidence. But this is AFTER the suspect is arrested. The process is similar with adults and juveniles, esp. On a homicide case.
On questioning juvenile suspects… More later. [/quote]
This sounds about like what I remember. Its only a minimal check to weed out only the completely frivolous cases.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
When a prosecutor presents a case to the Grand Jury, it’s simply a probable cause hearing. There is no defense present. When I go before the GJ, or DA types the indictment, I explain the facts and evidence to the GJ, they will ask me questions, then we are done. Then they rule shortly thereafter, granting a True Bill (prosecution) or a No True Bill (prosecution declined).
If a True Bill is granted, warrants are issued, the suspect is arrested. Then the court appearances start. THIS is when discovery starts, and the defense can make motions to suppress the state’s evidence. But this is AFTER the suspect is arrested. The process is similar with adults and juveniles, esp. On a homicide case.
On questioning juvenile suspects… More later. [/quote]