Jonathan Lippman appears to be really upset with existence of a power in the State of New York which is not under control of the judiciary.
That is the grand juries.
In fact, a criminal offense in the State of New York "superior" court may not be prosecuted other than "through the agency" of the grand jury.
In other words, a court higher than a village justice court will not receive jurisdiction over criminal proceedings other than through the indictment of the grand jury, which is a fairly independent body, not answering to the court.
In fact, I would add to the powers of the grand jury to commence their own investigations without presentment by local district attorneys.
Judge Lippman, of course, paid the lip service that the grand jury is a good thing and that it would not be proper for him to criticize their decisions:
Then Lippman starts to claim that the grand jury, an body independent from the court and giving (or not giving) the power to the court in felony cases, is actually, in Lippman's view, "a part of the court", and "an institution for which the Judiciary is ultimately responsible".
Grand jury is not "part of the court", it is a fairly independent body, but it is clear that Lippman is suffering from control pains since he considers himself "ultimately responsible" for the institution that he (and his courts) cannot control, but instead the grand jury controls the courts by giving or withholding from the court jurisdiction over felony proceedings.
And, even though Lippman recognizes that "it is not his role to defend or decry a particular grand jury decision", he pretty much does that:
Now not only 23 men and women of the grand juries cannot be right in indicting - or not indicting - a particular individual.
Now prosecutors cannot be left to themselves to present a case to the grand jury.
If Lippman thinks that prosecutors may be just a little bit too partial to police if, say, a case is presented to the grand jury against a police officer, what would be the logical solution?
I thought it would be a no brainer, especially for such a man of brilliance as Jonathan Lippman, the Chief Judge of the State of New York, the man commanding all this "spectacular" and brilliant judiciary, the "absolute best" in the country, according to his statement in the same address.
It would be to EXPAND the grand jury's independent powers, to allow the grand juries to conduct independent investigations on complaints of citizens, and to eliminate prosecutors from their official position as, both the person interested in the indictment, and the "legal advisor of the grand jury".
But that would mean - the horror! - more independence from the judiciary, too!
And less possibility of getting indictments against people "not liked" by the government.
So, Lippman had a diametrically opposite plan - to put the grand juries under the control of the courts.
Presumably, a judge, in his or her infinite wisdom, will direct the unreasonable 23 men and women toward the light of what needs to be done and whether to return or not to return an indictment.
And the judge will steer the grand juries from "sensitive" indictments against corrupt public officials to the "correct" indictments against "incorrect" people who government dislikes - right, Judge Lippman? Isn't it the purpose of putting the grand juries under control of the courts?
And, of course, this power-grab is meant to be for "the public good".
There is a saying: "when it isn't broken, don't fix it".
Whenever a public official tells you he/she is trying to do something new and cancel something old and working well "for the public good"...
Should we push for grand jury reform? Definitely.
To make it MORE independent from courts.
For the Grand Juries to have their own independent investigative powers.
For the Grand Juries to be able to hire their own legal advisers and experts, not to be led by the nose by the prosecutors - or by judges - as unreasonable children.
We need independent grand juries to clean up the corrupt mess that this state has become, including its "absolutely best" "spectacular" and spectacularly corrupt judiciary.
No comments:
Post a Comment