Legal question pertaining to Vick

[DMD]

I have read through the entire indictment which is here on The Smoking Gun.

 

Question - As I understand it, an indictment is a document which is used to determine if a Grand Jury should refer a case for trial - correct? And if so, does an indictment contain everything that the case will be about or can there be additional charges/facts brought up in the course of a trial? The 18 page indictment does not mention some of the things I have read and heard (like Vick personally paying a guy $23k to purchase two dogs that defeated Bad Newz Kennel dogs). Or is the indictment the "gameplan" of the defense that they will focus exclusively on?

 

And please do not start more of the Vick-hating/Vick-loving whining and crowing because I have a headache and am "in one of those moods".

 

The indictment details numerous dog fights and went as far in detail as to say that one witness yelled out Vick's name at a fight and was admonished for it. But most of the indictment does not place Vick at a dogfight per se, just that he "sponsored" it as an owner in BadNewz Kennels.

 

I would guess that being able to link Vick to the purchase of the property and the buildings alone would be enough, but I am just wondering if the indictment has all the evidence to be used or if anything else can be brought up. I would guess cross-examination would bring those elements in the indictment to a far greater detail, but can anything else be brought up?

 

Oh yes, and I would give Vick 1000:1 odds against him ever testifying himself. Now THAT would be entertaining. Wonder if they will broadcast the trial. This is like Paris Hilton for guys.

[H8tank]

but I am just wondering if the indictment has all the evidence to be used or if anything else can be brought up.

 

The evidence is likely in the thousands of pages.

[DMD]

I'm sure it eventually will be, just wondered if anything new can be introduced. To my knowledge, a Grand Jury indictment is only enough to warrant charges and a trial, not neccessarily everything.

[Grits and Shins]

I heard that only enough is included in the indictment to actually secure the indictment. Prosecutors attempt to hold back as much evidence as possible so as not to tip their hands to the defenders. So there could be much more evidence introduced at a trial.

[Pope Flick]

I'll defer to the lawyers, but if what I've heard is true: that the kid who lived at the house has yet to be charged, then that implies much more info will be forthcoming.

[Bronco Billy]

And please do not start more of the Vick-hating/Vick-loving whining and crowing because I have a headache and am "in one of those moods".

 

 

I'm no lawyer, so I could be 100% wrong, but it is my understanding that the Grand Jury determines if there is sufficient case for a trial. That would indicate that the prosecutor would want to provide enough evidence to make sure that the GJ understands without any shadow of a doubt that there is enough evidence to go to trial, but does not necessarily have to provide all evidence that they have.

 

The person whom is being sought to be brought to trial can testify but almost never does, as all they can do is damage their own case. Any other witnesses/parties/evidence may be presented. GJ members may ask direct questions for clarification.

[Whiskey Pimp]

Shouldn't this be in the Tailgate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vet]

The prosecutors present the charges and thier evidence to a grand jury. The grand jury then decides if their is sufficient evidence to formally charge the defendent wih the crime. If the grand jury decides (by majority vote) that there is enough evidence to proceed, they return an indictment. Otherwise, the charges are dismissed. The level of proof is not the same as a trial, where a guilty verdict is (supposedly) only returned if the evidence shows the defendent guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the case of an indictment, the bar is much lower. Basically, if there is a reasonable chance that the defendent did something ("probable cause"), the grand jury can indict. The prosecutors only have to show that they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. Therefore, they do not have to, and in most cases do not, present all the evidence they have. They present just enough to get the case to trial where much more evidence will likely be presented. However, if additional charges are going to be filed, the prosecutors would have to show that they have sufficient evidence to support those charges and get a seperate indictment. For example, they can't bring someone into court on a trespassing charge and then say "Oh yeah, while we have you here we're going to charge you with murder too." Additional charges would have to be presented seperately to another grand jury. However, additional evidence to support the existing charges can and will be presented at trial.

 

Hope that helps.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Vet

[The Misfit]

Yeah, it's best not to confuse the indictment with issues of evidence.

 

The purpose of this hearing is to formally inform Vick of the charges against him, to make sure he understands them, and enter a plea, which is almost always a plea of not guilty. By almost always I mean if Vick walked in and pled guilty, I doubt the court would know what to do. I doubt they would even accept a guilty plea (technically, they could set it over for sentencing, but again I doubt a judge would even accept a guilty plea).

 

It's not uncommon for indictments to be as small a paragraph or two, and that includes major felonies like murder.

 

Needless to say, the media is blowing the importance of this stage way, way out of proportion.

[BillyBalata]

The prosecutors present the charges and thier evidence to a grand jury. The grand jury then decides if their is sufficient evidence to formally charge the defendent wih the crime. If the grand jury decides (by majority vote) that there is enough evidence to proceed, they return an indictment. Otherwise, the charges are dismissed. The level of proof is not the same as a trial, where a guilty verdict is (supposedly) only returned if the evidence shows the defendent guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the case of an indictment, the bar is much lower. Basically, if there is a reasonable chance that the defendent did something ("probable cause"), the grand jury can indict. The prosecutors only have to show that they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. Therefore, they do not have to, and in most cases do not, present all the evidence they have. They present just enough to get the case to trial where much more evidence will likely be presented. However, if additional charges are going to be filed, the prosecutors would have to show that they have sufficient evidence to support those charges and get a seperate indictment. For example, they can't bring someone into court on a trespassing charge and then say "Oh yeah, while we have you here we're going to charge you with murder too." Additional charges would have to be presented seperately to another grand jury. However, additional evidence to support the existing charges can and will be presented at trial.

--

Hope that helps.

 

 

This is pretty much spot on. I served on a Federal Grand Jury for a year. And as Vet mentioned, if they want to add more charges they have to come back to the Grand Jury asking for another indictment. We had that happen several times, where 2-3 months later, they would come back and want do exactly that.

[Big Dogs]

I heard that only enough is included in the indictment to actually secure the indictment. Prosecutors attempt to hold back as much evidence as possible so as not to tip their hands to the defenders. So there could be much more evidence introduced at a trial.

 

 

Good info here!! My wife works for a law firm and asked her the same question, and she said that the only information submitted in the indictment is actually what the lawyers feel they need to secure the indictment.

[Vet]

Yeah, it's best not to confuse the indictment with issues of evidence.

 

The purpose of this hearing is to formally inform Vick of the charges against him, to make sure he understands them, and enter a plea, which is almost always a plea of not guilty. By almost always I mean if Vick walked in and pled guilty, I doubt the court would know what to do. I doubt they would even accept a guilty plea (technically, they could set it over for sentencing, but again I doubt a judge would even accept a guilty plea).

 

It's not uncommon for indictments to be as small a paragraph or two, and that includes major felonies like murder.

 

Needless to say, the media is blowing the importance of this stage way, way out of proportion.

 

 

Actually, most defendants do plea guilty to federal charges.

 

According to the DOJ, 90% of defendants indicted of federal charges are convicted. Of that 90%, 96% plead guilty. So, doing the math (0.90x0.96), about 86% of people indicted on federal charges plead guilty. That's why the reported conviction rate is so high, only 14% or so go to trial at all.

 

As I stated in a previousl post, I think the DOJ might be inflating those numbers a bit. Independent studies put the conviction rate in the 65%-80% range. But the fact is that a HUGH percentage of people plead guilty before the case ever gets to trial.

[Bill Swerski]

Actually, most defendants do plea guilty to federal charges.

 

According to the DOJ, 90% of defendants indicted of federal charges are convicted. Of that 90%, 96% plead guilty. So, doing the math (0.90x0.96), about 86% of people indicted on federal charges plead guilty. That's why the reported conviction rate is so high, only 14% or so go to trial at all.

 

As I stated in a previousl post, I think the DOJ might be inflating those numbers a bit. Independent studies put the conviction rate in the 65%-80% range. But the fact is that a HUGH percentage of people plead guilty before the case ever gets to trial.

 

So, any news yet on how Ron Mexico plead?

[Vet]

So, any news yet on how Ron Mexico plead?

 

He pled Not Guilty.

[cdrudge]

 

I heard that only enough is included in the indictment to actually secure the indictment. Prosecutors attempt to hold back as much evidence as possible so as not to tip their hands to the defenders. So there could be much more evidence introduced at a trial.

They don't present everything, but you also have to be careful as to how much you hold back. Technically any evidence, witnesses, etc that the prosecution has they need to also turn over to the defense. The defense is required to as well. The prosecution can't spring a surprise witness or smoking right at the end of the trial that the defense hasn't had a chance to prepare for unless there is a REALLY good reason. However the prosecution isn't required to share their complete game plan and connect all the dots for the defense either.

[The Wolf]

He pled Not Guilty.

 

Well, he lied to Blank, he lied to Goodell, he lied to his fans...why not lie to the Feds too?

[Goopster24]

The government will file a superseded indictment in August. ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack said that could mean new charges filed, or it could mean someone -- usually a person who has agreed to cooperate -- is being dropped from the indictment. That would mean a new arraignment.

 

This would delay the trial even more. And Roger said there is no way that Vick is the one dropped.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Goopster24

[DMD]

They said his trial will be mid-November I believe

[BeeR]

Well, he lied to Blank, he lied to Goodell, he lied to his fans...why not lie to the Feds too?

racist.

[budlitebrad]

Did you hear the statement from his attorney? I hope he's a better lawyer than a public speaker.

[chaz13]

I believe he was indicted on conspiracy charges, which is easier to prove than him actually participating in the dog fights.

[Bronco Billy]

Did you hear the statement from his attorney? I hope he's a better lawyer than a public speaker.

 

I'd like to see you do better.

 

You think it's easy to stand up there in front of everyone and speak calmly while the whole time you're trying to keep from laughing your ass off because you know that everyone who is listening knows what incredibly transparent ridiculous lies that you're telling & expecting them all to believe?

[TheShiznit]

Yeah, it's best not to confuse the indictment with issues of evidence.

 

The purpose of this hearing is to formally inform Vick of the charges against him, to make sure he understands them, and enter a plea, which is almost always a plea of not guilty. By almost always I mean if Vick walked in and pled guilty, I doubt the court would know what to do. I doubt they would even accept a guilty plea (technically, they could set it over for sentencing, but again I doubt a judge would even accept a guilty plea).

 

It's not uncommon for indictments to be as small a paragraph or two, and that includes major felonies like murder.

 

Needless to say, the media is blowing the importance of this stage way, way out of proportion.

 

They can hold back all the evidence now....but once the trial is set, doesn't the Prosecution have to offer up to the defense a list of witnesses and exhibits to be used against him. Obviously they don't have to provide how they will question the witnesses.....help me if I am wrong here?

[joethin]

The prosecutors present the charges and thier evidence to a grand jury. The grand jury then decides if their is sufficient evidence to formally charge the defendent wih the crime. If the grand jury decides (by majority vote) that there is enough evidence to proceed, they return an indictment. Otherwise, the charges are dismissed. The level of proof is not the same as a trial, where a guilty verdict is (supposedly) only returned if the evidence shows the defendent guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the case of an indictment, the bar is much lower. Basically, if there is a reasonable chance that the defendent did something ("probable cause"), the grand jury can indict. The prosecutors only have to show that they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. Therefore, they do not have to, and in most cases do not, present all the evidence they have. They present just enough to get the case to trial where much more evidence will likely be presented. However, if additional charges are going to be filed, the prosecutors would have to show that they have sufficient evidence to support those charges and get a seperate indictment. For example, they can't bring someone into court on a trespassing charge and then say "Oh yeah, while we have you here we're going to charge you with murder too." Additional charges would have to be presented seperately to another grand jury. However, additional evidence to support the existing charges can and will be presented at trial.

 

Hope that helps.

Pretty accurate.

 

An indictment is the result of a True Bill entered by a Grand Jury (The People) where the Prosecutor presents evidence of a crime to be examined by the Jury and for them to determine whether or not there is enough Probable Cause to issue an Indictment and/or open an Investigative Matter. Having said that a Grand Jury can issue an Indictment and still have an "open matter" pending Investigation. In Vick's case, as I understand, there are allegations/suspicions of Money Laundering (Gambling, etc) activity in lieu of the Dog Fighting crime. If there is a Financial investigation running parallel to the current Indictment, the prosecutor can go ahead and present new evidence and do a superseding Indictment and bring charges all to themselves in a separate Indictment. If that is the case, the jail time goes up to a max of 20 years of imprisonment for each Money Laundering charge and then you can add a whole bunch of other charges like Conspiracy to commit a crime, etc, etc. Anyways, it can real ugly real fast.

[The Misfit]

Actually, most defendants do plea guilty to federal charges.

 

According to the DOJ, 90% of defendants indicted of federal charges are convicted. Of that 90%, 96% plead guilty. So, doing the math (0.90x0.96), about 86% of people indicted on federal charges plead guilty. That's why the reported conviction rate is so high, only 14% or so go to trial at all.

 

As I stated in a previousl post, I think the DOJ might be inflating those numbers a bit. Independent studies put the conviction rate in the 65%-80% range. But the fact is that a HUGH percentage of people plead guilty before the case ever gets to trial.

 

Yes, the system works best if people plead. Just not at the arraignment.

 

 

They can hold back all the evidence new....but once the trial is set, doesn't the Prosecution have to offer up to the defense a list of witnesses and exhibits to be used against him. Obviously they don't have to provide how they will question the witnesses.....help me if I am wrong here?

 

They are in the discovery period now. The prosecution has to release what they know about the facts and how their witnessesses will testiy.

 

Generally,. there are no surprises.