🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard (anonymous@127.000) wrote:
:  Merlin! wrote:

:  > spamblocker@pacbell.net wrote:
:  > : Jackson's arraignment will be held in January.  Why so late?

:  > : I thought the arraignment was to be held within 72 hours of the arrest.


:  > : http://www.law4545.com/practice.htm

:  > : INITIAL ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT
:  > : ANYONE ARRESTED IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF A MAGISTRATE
:  > OR A : JUDGE TO BE ARRAIGNED WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER THE ARREST (UNLESS IT
:  > IS ON A : WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY). Arraignment is the first stage of the
:  > legal proceedings, : and it is at this stage that prosecution files its
:  > complaint against the : arrested person.

:  >      Here's another question.  The Bill of Rights (5th amemdment) states:
:  > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
:  > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
:  > jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
:  > the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
:  > danger."
:  >      Yet Scott Peterson was not indicted by a grand jury--he had only
:  > an arraignment hearing--and it sounds like the same goes for Jacskon.
:  > What gives?

: I believe Peterson was indicted by a grand jury.

     Cite?

: In Jackson's case, this was not something done on a whim overnight.
: And a search warrant does not violate the 5th amendment.

     I never said it did.  I believe it's the fourth amendment that
prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure."  A warrant is required,
and it has to be based on probable cause.
     Don't get me started on the drug seizure laws and how the courts
have justified those obvious violations of the Bill of Rights.

: From what I've seen, this incident took place like two months ago, which is
: more than ample time for a grand jury to hear the case.

     The "incident" took place almost a year ago, and with all the
press sensationalism, I believe I would have heard about a Grand
Jury.