#11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the eleventh post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

Yet another question here, despite that flow-chart clearing up how the court proceedings work if arrest and arraignment do happen first(and thank you so much to the anon who posted that!):

But if I understood correctly, there wouldn't need to be an arrest and arraignment to bring the case to a grand jury in the judicial district Kane in the best case scenario will have to face a criminal trial, right? The DA could (and would have to?) bring the case to a grand jury if there was enough evidence that a crime occurred and was a felony crime?

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

The grand jury is what ultimately decides if there is enough evidence for a trial.

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, sorry, I worded my question quite poorly (and am from a country that doesn't have juries at all, so this is a little hard for me to grasp correctly).
What I meant was, does there need to be an arrest first, or can the DA bring the case up to a grand jury without Kane being arrested first if he was unsure as to if charge him at all or with what? From what I understood, and please corrcet me if I'm wrong, he would only have to bring it to grand jury if he wanted to try him for a major crime but still could decide to bring it to a grand jury if he was unsure if Kane should be charged with a major/minor crime or not at all?

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

da

there does not need to be an arrest first. however, the DA (prosecutor) is the one who decides on the initial charges, not the grand jury. I know this is a little confusing, but basically a prosecutor cannot be "unsure" about the charges they are bringing - they go before a grand jury to argue why they are correct in choosing the specific charges they want to bring against a person. The grand jury may, at its discretion, confirm those charges and issue an indictment, decide that the felony charge is not warranted and refer the matter to a lower court with a misdemeanor charge instead, or dismiss the charges by refusing to indict the defendant.

in order to make a decision, grand juries are presented with the charges against a specific person and a definition of what those charges mean legally (like, literally the prosecutor will read them a definition and the associated legal code) and the grand jury then has to determine if there is probable cause to indict. grand juries can request evidence and ask all kinds of questions in the process of their determination, but they typically interact with the prosecution only, and not with the defendant or the defendant's lawyer.

Also, it is unusual for a grand jury not to indict - in NY, grand juries will issue an indictment on something like 75-85% of all cases. One NY judge famously said that a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich" when complaining about the felony processing system.

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

to answer your question, the arrest and arraignment don't necessarily need to occur, but the defendant has to waive his rights for that to happen.

the arrest and arraignment are procedural requirements. an arraignment is the formal process by which a defendant is informed of the charges brought against him by the court and his constitutional rights. In NY, defendants typically must be arrested and arraigned (charged) within a 48 hour window (in some places 24 hrs) but a defendant may waive his right to an arraignment reading - i.e. the formal reading of charges in a court room setting - so that he does not have to appear in a court room to hear the charges. It would not surprise me if Kane waives his right to an arraignment reading in the interest of keeping a low profile.

if the arraignment is waived but he is still charged with a felony, the case will go before a grand jury to determine if there will be an indictment. if he's not charged with a felony, the case would go to the lower court instead, where he would be able to enter a guilty plea or go to trial.

Re: Patrick Kane

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you, anon, this helped me understand how the legal process works in the US and NY so much better!