In most states, self-employed persons have the option of purchasing coverage for themselves, but it’s usually not required by law.
Shouldn't a person performing a dangerous job be responsible for protecting themselves from that risk? If he doesn't take the insurance on himself and price in his premiums when bidding a job, why does the 22 year old IT specialist that isnt likely to be hurt have to pay a fine to take on his risk? Shouldn't the roofing contractor go bankrupt for his decision?
I wasn't following it enough to know whether a Grand Jury had been involved in the indictment phase or not. But the clarification still holds that there is no such thing as a Grand Jury Trial. The Zimmerman Trial was before a regular jury.
Yes, it is a hearing. The point is, and indictment is a presumption of guilt, and the defendant has no representation. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and jurors decide if there is enough to move to trial.
Yes, it is a hearing. The point is, and indictment is a presumption of guilt, and the defendant has no representation. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and jurors decide if there is enough to move to trial.
Cissy just makes it up as he goes along. If it sounds good to him... it must be true!
A defendant has a right to testify before the Grand Jury. See: People v. Maddox
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A defendant has a right to testify before the Grand Jury. See: People v. Maddox
In some states they have that right.
The defense can only bring witnesses and evidence with the prosecutions permission. The defense can't cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The jury can be presented with evidence collected illegally.
The grand jury makes a decision with laws that heavily favor the prosecution. And when they indict, it's a presumption of guilt that follows the accused into court.
Historically, the grand jury--which was known as "the voice of the community" or "the people's panel"--was a way of injecting the common sense of the individuals who make up the community into government affairs. Specifically, grand juries were used to bring the everyday person's perspective into two aspects of government: investigating crime and/or community conditions and bringing charges against people who may have committed crimes. They still do both these things.
After they hear all the prosecutor's evidence, the jurors vote on a set of proposed charges --known as an "indictment"--which the prosecutor has drafted and gives to the grand jurors. If the grand jurors decide the evidence creates probable cause to believe the persons named in an indictment committed the crimes it charges them with, they vote to "return" the indictment, i.e., to charge the person with those crimes. Voting to return charges is usually known as "returning a true bill." If a grand jury votes to return a true bill, the indictment is valid and it initiates a criminal case against the people named as defendants in the indictment. A majority of the grand jurors must vote for an indictment in order to return a true bill.
Voting for Probable Cause, is a much less restrictive decision than voting for Guilty or Not Guilty in a trial.
A reasonable jury could have voted for "probably cause" in the Martin Murder indictment, but had those same people been in the jury instead of the grand jury, they might have found Not Guilty.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A person is not a defendant until he or she is indicted. Thus if a person testifies before a grand jury, he or she is NOT a defendant but rather a suspect or, more precisely, a possible suspect. (D.A.s and police are wary to use the word "suspect" outright because once they use the word in relation to a specific person, it immediately changes the legal situation and depending on the state starts a legal time clock to either "put up or shut up"/indict or not indict within a certain time frame.)
Someone else was referring to "probable cause" but that is up to a Grand Jury and NOT a Trial Jury. Once the case goes to a Trial Jury, they either find the person Guilty or Not Guilty (or end up in a Hung Jury) on the specific charges filed. The Trial Jury can't say Not Guilty on the charges filed but lets find the defendant Guilty on some other charge that the prosecution failed to charge the defendant with.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Voting for Probable Cause, is a much less restrictive decision than voting for Guilty or Not Guilty in a trial.
A reasonable jury could have voted for "probably cause" in the Martin Murder indictment, but had those same people been in the jury instead of the grand jury, they might have found Not Guilty.
What a great legal mind you have, and all that from a 12th grade education! Wow.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Alex Jones is your source??? Really??? Why not a psychic, or The Amazing Kreskin, or Madam Fifi from Madam Fifi's palm readings, or some other 'reliable source"?
26 Alex Jones LIES Debunked
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Alex Jones is your source??? Really??? Why not a psychic, or The Amazing Kreskin, or Madam Fifi from Madam Fifi's palm readings, or some other 'reliable source"?
And yet you have nothing to say about this case other then attack the source, you used to put up decent arguments now you just spend your time in troll mode, and you wonder why nobody takes you serious here.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
And yet you have nothing to say about this case other then attack the source, you used to put up decent arguments now you just spend your time in troll mode, and you wonder why nobody takes you serious here.
Replying to an Alex Jones video is a total waste of time. Like replying to a L4Life post... It goes nowhere. I'd be glad to respond to a valid topic of interest, but Jones is neither valid or of interest.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Replying to an Alex Jones video is a total waste of time. Like replying to a L4Life post... It goes nowhere. I'd be glad to respond to a valid topic of interest, but Jones is neither valid or of interest.
Yes run little piggy run
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Shouldn't a person performing a dangerous job be responsible for protecting themselves from that risk? If he doesn't take the insurance on himself and price in his premiums when bidding a job, why does the 22 year old IT specialist that isnt likely to be hurt have to pay a fine to take on his risk? Shouldn't the roofing contractor go bankrupt for his decision?
My current job requires ME to carry a 2 million dollar LIABILITY policy-- i am hired as an individual person. In case I cause damage to property or person. ( $ 1,664 per year ).
Like a liability policy gun owners should probably carry.
Yes, it is a hearing. The point is, and indictment is a presumption of guilt, and the defendant has no representation. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and jurors decide if there is enough to move to trial.
I thought, and i could be wrong here, but i thought the 'pre-trial', so to say....is just to see if there is enough evidence on BOTH sides that warrants a 'real trial'......no?
it's not admitting or supporting guilt....just that there is enough evidence ON BOTH SIDES to go to trial.
again i could be wrong here....i'm no attorney for sure!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I thought, and i could be wrong here, but i thought the 'pre-trial', so to say....is just to see if there is enough evidence on BOTH sides that warrants a 'real trial'......no?
it's not admitting or supporting guilt....just that there is enough evidence ON BOTH SIDES to go to trial.
again i could be wrong here....i'm no attorney for sure!
I believe the pre trial is when the judge hears the evidence and listens to testimony and tries to get the prosecution and defense to plea a deal. Maybe to settle for a lesser charge. Your testimony during a pre trial hearing can be used during trial. Zimmerman waived his pre trial hearing. His lawyers must have known he wasn't going to have his client testify during trial, he certainly didn't want Zimmerman to speak to a judge that was presiding over a highly politicized case, and risk Zimmerman's pre trial testimony be used by the prosecution.
Logged
