|
Parent Article: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by lawnerd
lawnerd (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Dr. John Hilty said: "There appears to be a violation of due process of law: A case was allowed to proceed before the court when probable cause was never established. This type of violation of Mr. Thompson's constitutional rights nullifies the moral validity of the trial and its outcome. Therefore, Mr. Thompson can be considered the victim of a faulty criminal justice system."
The probable cause/preliminary hearing/grand jury indictment issue can be very confusing. Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution says that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless upon a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." Two terms in that clause are archaic: "infamous crimes" we now call felonies; and, instead of a "presentment" we now call it a "preliminary hearing.'
In the vast majority of cases where felony cases are brought by the county State's Attorney, they are brought in the form of an "information.' An information is a charging document that the State's Attorney draws up, and swears to. When a defendant is charged with a felony offense by information, he has the right to demand a further showing of probable cause: the 'presentment' or preliminary hearing.
A grand jury indictment, on the other hand, is said to have probable cause "on its face." Therefore, the State's Attorney can satisfy the probable cause requirement of a preliminary hearing by taking her information to the grand jury and asking them for an indictment.
Because the State took the case to the grand jury and obtained a true bill of indictment, Patrick Thompson's due process rights were not violated, at least insofar as the Fifth Amendment probable cause requirement is concerned. |
