What do you think of Chicago's fair-haired boy, Dan Rostenkowski?
Is he being unfairly hunted, or should he get the book thrown at
him?  At this writing, there's talk of his defense consisting of
assertions that he hasn't done anything that most of Congress has not
done for years.  As you can imagine, his fellow representatives are not
crazy about him taking this approach.  What do you think?

16 responses total.

 This could be the death knell to politics as we know it. That is, if he is
convicted. I, for one, am not a big fan of the grand jury, because it is
slanted in the favor of the prosecution, and defense lawyers are not allowed.
Personally, I think if the prosecution had a real case, specific, and 
direct charges should be levied, and then Rostenkowski should be able to
answer them. The fact that a GJ indicted him, tells me that the prosecution
is doing more fishing than charging. 
   I hate politics. I hate the back room favors, and the supression of the
power that is in these people's hands. We could have so much i
weren for people playing small politcal games.

Have you read the Constitution lately, Jim?  That first clause of the
Fifth Amendment....

 The part about self incrimination, Aaron?

  Mobsters use that one ad nasuem.

  I am going on the assumption that he is innocent until proven otherwise.
I just stated that I OPPOSE USE OF GRAND JURIES. THEY ARE BIASED IN FAVOR
OF THE PROSECUTION. ARE YOU HEARING ME AARON???? I FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE
BANNED AND OUTLAWED. THEY DON'T FOSTER EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.

I guess that's one way to say you haven't read it.  No, Jim -- the
constitutional right to indictment by grand jury for capital or
infamous (felony) offenses.

Constitutional right, Jim.  No governmental discretion.  Mandated by
the Constitution.  Ignorant ranting, even in all-caps, irrelevant.  Etc.

  I will admit to not being aware of that part of the 5th. My mistake.

 I am stating, no matter how relevent it is, that the grand jury system is
inherently unfair to those whom are accused. Let me explain.

 1. The prosecution holds all the cards. It may call or subpeona ANYONE
 However, the accused does not have that right. The Prosecution can, and
often does hold the procedings in secret. Defense lawyers are not allowed,
so if you are subpeonaed by the Grand Jury, you are not entitled to a defense.
 That is unfair in my book, and I think it needs to be re written.

 Answer me this, o oracle of the Law--- 

  Tell me how one can formulate a credible defense before a GJ.

 Does anyone who becomes the target of a grand jury ever get aquitted?

 Do you have any figures?

 Please ignore the fact that it is a part of out justice system, and weigh
the facts as you are aware of them. I have done some reading on the Grand Jury
system and formulated my opinions from what I read, and from what lawyers 
have told me.

Geez....  You really have no concept of what a "grand jury" is.  You can't
be convicted by a grand jury.  You can't be acquitted by a grand jury.  The
grand jury was formulated as a check on the prosecutor, by requiring that
serious charges first be screened by a panel of ordinary men.  It has
evolved into an investigative tool.  But it has absolutely nothing to do
with the verdict.  That is what a "trial" is about.

 Thanks for opening my somewhat blind eyes. 

 I know that one can be indicted, but that means there is enough evidence
to bring charges, or one the gj can choose not to indict.


OK. carry on. I'm happy.

Things are different now than when the grand jury rules were instituted.
The way a simple indictment serves to convict in the eyes of the public
seems due to the much greater impact of the media.  #6 was a good
explanation of the process -- the grand jury just answers the question about
whether there's enough evidence to go forward with prosecution.  Whoops,
guess I just repeated what you said.  But the fact of an indictment, 
even if the indictee is then found "not guilty" will have an impact for
life.  But I can't think of a better way.

re #7:  The alternative to having a grand jury is... to not have one.
        This sounds like a strange "alternative," but it would bring the
        federal system pretty much in line with the typical state system.
        For the most part, grand juries are a waste of time and resources.
        You are correct -- they can be a very good prosecutorial
        investigative tool -- which is why some states allow for "special
        grand juries."  (Michigan, for one.)  The fact that they aren't
        called very often reflects their lack of utility in the typical
        case.  (The defendant gets an adversarial "preliminary examination,"
        where defense witnesses can be, but usually aren't, presented, and
        where prosecution witnesses can be cross-examined by defense
        counsel.  The goal?  To have the judge determine if there is merit
        to the charges.  Why have a grand jury, also?  Most states haven't
        found a reason outside of a state constitutional provision mirroring
        the federal guarantee.)

re #8:  That is true, even without a grand jury.  The very fact that a
        charge is brought can be very damaging -- it is very hard to prove
        yourself innocent in the court of public opinion.

  I think that the upper echelon of our civil servants should be held to a
higher standard, & if they're convicted of violating the public trust by
committing illegal acts using any of their official powers, they ought to
be executed, paralleling their crime(s) to the punishment for treason.
 
   As for Rosty, I like The Duke's philosophy -- promise them "A fair trial,
& then a fair hanging."

   If nothing else, I hope Rosty gets a multi-million dollar legal bill, goes
broke, gets booted from the House, & the only job he can find is doing
touch-up painting on mailboxes in downtown Chicago.

Rosty had already "raised" almost a million dollars for his defense.  It
pays to be on the Ways and Means Committee, and in a position to reclaim
the chair if acquitted.

I can't wait to see what happens.. It ought to be real interesting to see what
all "comes out in the wash?? exit

Not that this has any real relevance to Rosty's guilt or innocence, but
about a week and a half ago I was standing in the National Airport in D.C.,
saying good-bye to a friend when who should come trudging down the
corridor!natalk graduate@cat.cce.usp.br

(wow! what did graduate have to say?)

Maybe Tim will come back and finish his post.
While we're waiting is a good time for me to point out to anyone who might
be reading this, that if you are entering something, and you get
interrupted by a talk request like that, you can do the following:
Type return to get the > prompt. Type :!ntalk etcetc and have your
conversation. The : is an escape character that the text collector uses
to identify this line as a command and not more text. The ! command
says to treat what follows as a shell command.

When you're done, and you find yourself back at the > prompt, type :p
to see what you've typed so far.

Sorry about that. You diagnosed exactly what happened. Anyway, as I was saying
before the ntalk interuption, I was at the National Airport when who
should come trudging down the corridor but, yes, Rosty himself, briefcase
in hand, trademark bulldog expression, looking so forlorn even a Republican
would have to feel sorry for the man.  (How do I correct "interRuption"?)
The first thing I did, of course, was to give a double-take. Yep, that was
Rosty. But then, I found myself in a dilemma. Should I run up and ask for
an autograph or picture? On the one hand, this was THE former, in the words
we've heard so often, "very powerful chairman of the very powerful House
Ways and Means Committee." On the other hand, this man could prove to have
embodied everything that's wrong with inside-the-Beltway politics today.

     Well, by the time I had wrestled with my dilemma, it was moot. He had
continued his trudging (he "trudges" so well) right past me through the
metal detector and to his gate, where (I checked) a Chicago-bound flight
was minutes away from departure time. I guess I ended up doing the right
thing. But I wonder.... Ahhh, the allure of POWER, raw power. On the other
hand, corruption is corruption and the bigger the beast, the more we as
a society must condemn the behavior in our midst.... O.J., Ollie, Rodney
King's assailants, Reginald Denny, Packwood, etc., etc., etc.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss