🚀 go-pugleaf

Merlin (mag@camelot.org) wrote:
: Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> 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?
: >

: What gives is that clause doesn't apply to Scott Peterson.
: see Hurtado v. Cal (1884).

     Wow, that's scary.  The state can decide that some other 
approach will be used instead of the Grand Jury, as long as there is
"due process."  What keeps the state from deciding that a group of
prison guards can roll dice to decide whether or not a suspect is
brought to trial?