To put it simply, here's why Joe Horn's case did not get past the Grand Jury: It was not a trial the D.A.'s office could win.
It's really that simple, though to understand why takes some explanation.
The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to try a case. How much evidence is needed? Not much - this is not a guilt/innocence hearing, it's a procedural hearing that determines whether or not the charge will go to trial. This means that the standard of proof is lower, much lower. In fact, the defendant is not authorized to present evidence in his or her defense at a grand jury hearing, though sometimes they are allowed to do so.
What happens is that the D.A.'s office presents the case to the grand jury in it's best light. The grand jury considers the information, and, under most circumstances, presents an indictment (this is because generally the D.A.'s office will not present before a grand jury unless there is enough to secure an indictment).
Sometimes, however, a grand jury is convened for a case that the D.A.'s office does not want to try. Why would they do that? Consider a situation where there is no real crime, but there is a lot of public outrage. Or, consider a situation where there may be a crime, but it's pretty clear that the person being charged did not commit the crime based on what the D.A.'s office receives in evidence but the People have already made up their minds in the Court of Public Opinion. In situations such as these, the D.A.'s office will bring the accused to the Grand Jury and present a case, not necessarily a strong case, not necessarily a weak case. Sometimes, they might allow the accused to present evidence or tell his or her side of the story. The grand jury hears the evidence, and determines what the D.A. already knew - that there is little to no chance of a conviction for violation of the law, and rejects the indictment.
This is almost certainly what happened in Horn's case. The D.A. saw the evidence, knew the odds of successfully getting a conviction, and determined the potential reward (conviction) was too hard to reach to justify the expense of a murder trial. It also knew the public outcry if it (the D.A.'s office) simply dropped the charges. Letting the Grand Jury refuse the indictment helps keep the "rabble" satisfied that they at least tried, and then the outrage can go to the process - injustice happened because the "system" is "broke."
3 comments:
Steve, get in touch with my cousin, Peter. He has a preposition for you. You must learn to return phone calls to relatives who are the bearers of potential jobs...
I guess what I would say is that we don't have knowledge of all the facts. What we know is that a man who states he believes he was defending his property shot two individuals who encroached onto it. This is protected by law, and as such, I have my reservations about saying he "should" be in jail.
I think you could be absolutely right that if Joe Horn were black or hispanic he could very well be waiting trial this time, but that does not change the basic premise that what he did was lawful, rather it changes the perception of those who are interpreting what happened. And if the only variable in the situation that changed was race, then even though he might be spending his time in jail waiting trial, the end result likely would be the same.
On the 911 tapes he gives a minute-by-minute account of the deceased robbing his neighbor. When they begin to leave and the police have not yet arrived, Mr. Horn states that he is going to do something about. The operator specifically tells him not to go outside, but he goes anyways and shoots the alleged burglars in the back.
What he did is most definately not lawful. You do not have a right - even in Texas - to defend the property of others by deadly force. Further, his alleged self defense claim is defeated by two factors: 1) they were shot in the back - and one does not have the right to use deadly force once the aggressor has retreated; and 2) he became the initial aggressor by going outside with a rifle in had and the initial aggressor does not have a right to use deadly force in self defense.
The district attorney made a political decision - a decision that appealed to the majority of his constituants. After all, the middle class whites are the one's who actually turn out and vote and have the money to donate to his re-election campaign. If he prosecutes Horn (even if he ultimately loses) he appears soft on crime and compassionate toward the plight of illegal aliens (i.e., the deceased).
Post a Comment