Kane might be in legal trouble in Buffalo Pt II (verifiable sources only, no hearsay)

[HockeySauce]

Doesn't bode well for Kane if they feel strong enough to present it to a grand jury...

Does this not coincide what was reported earlier? This DA doesn't like to make decisions like this, so he passes it off to a grand jury. Steers heat off himself.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

If is going to a grand jury is it really only one sided? I would have though other witnesses that night would have to appear, not just the alleged victims girlfriend. Others who were with Kane that night, the guy who was driving him, people from the bar. If its truly one sided it doesn't seem like a proper picture is painted to decide if it merits charges being filed.

Anyone with expertise, can you explain the grand jury procedure and who is called to testify? Is it really only witnesses against the alleged defendant?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The grand jury's sole purpose is to determine whether or not the state has grounds to prosecute, not whether or not there were extenuating circumstances or reasonable doubt. So no, the defense will not have the ability to call witnesses, though I do believe they'll have the ability to consult with all witnesses called after the fact.

The fact of the matter is that grand juries usually vote to indict if that's what the prosecution wants. It's even been famously quipped that any prosecutor worth their salt could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted them to do so. If the state believes that they have grounds for a winnable case, it's near unthinkable that they couldn't get a grand jury their way. Whether or not the state thinks they have a case is what we have yet to know. The prosecutor's intentional pinning it on the grand jury actually leaves me with some questions about what he thinks so far. Maybe just being coy, maybe laying the groundwork to say, "Damn, couldn't proceed with a case, they didn't vote to indict. Shucks."

 

[Kitty Hawk]

Also, most DA'S go to a grand jury because it's secret.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Also good point. Grand juries are supposed to be a sealed vault. Fight club rules, what happens in Vegas, etc.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Quick note: as I mentioned in an earlier post an indictment is a necessary predicate for the "Supreme Court" (the felony court) to hear a case (absent waiver of the right to be prosecuted by grand jury action).

It is very uncommon to have a grand jury hear a matter prior to an arrest but not unheard of.

Grand juries are held in secret and the information about who testified is only released to the defense on the day of trial, and only if that person is testifying at trial. This comes as part of the Rosario package.

The grand jury was meant to be a protection for defendants but is really just a rubber stamp for prosecutors. It is very rare that a grand jury returns no true bill (no indictment). Grand jurors do have the ability to call witnesses of their choosing but rarely do because they don't know who to call as they are in the almost total control of the grand jury proceeding.

Grand jury proceedings have no judge and no opposing counsel. It is the grand jurors, the prosecutor and a court reporter. Defendants do have the right to testify in the grand jury if they so choose, but it is rarely beneficial (not always though)

I'm happy to explain the grand jury process more to you guys if needed. I expect to be sitting in court staring at my phone for a considerable amount of time tomorrow.

 

[Kitty Hawk]

Also good point. Grand juries are supposed to be a sealed vault. Fight club rules, what happens in Vegas,

The grand jury process is fascinating.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

Quick note: as I mentioned in an earlier post an indictment is a necessary predicate for the "Supreme Court" (the felony court) to hear a case (absent waiver of the right to be prosecuted by grand jury action).

It is very uncommon to have a grand jury hear a matter prior to an arrest but not unheard of.

Grand juries are held in secret and the information about who testified is only released to the defense on the day of trial, and only if that person is testifying at trial. This comes as part of the Rosario package.

The grand jury was meant to be a protection for defendants but is really just a rubber stamp for prosecutors. It is very rare that a grand jury returns no true bill (no indictment). Grand jurors do have the ability to call witnesses of their choosing but rarely do because they don't know who to call as they are in the almost total control of the grand jury proceeding.

Grand jury proceedings have no judge and no opposing counsel. It is the grand jurors, the prosecutor and a court reporter. Defendants do have the right to testify in the grand jury if they so choose, but it is rarely beneficial (not always though)

I'm happy to explain the grand jury process more to you guys if needed. I expect to be sitting in court staring at my phone for a considerable amount of time tomorrow.

So if the grand jury deems there is enough to proceed does that mean its a definite the DA will go ahead? And if so that would mean an arrest will soon follow?

 

[Kitty Hawk]

Quick note: as I mentioned in an earlier post an indictment is a necessary predicate for the "Supreme Court" (the felony court) to hear a case (absent waiver of the right to be prosecuted by grand jury action).

It is very uncommon to have a grand jury hear a matter prior to an arrest but not unheard of.

Grand juries are held in secret and the information about who testified is only released to the defense on the day of trial, and only if that person is testifying at trial. This comes as part of the Rosario package.

The grand jury was meant to be a protection for defendants but is really just a rubber stamp for prosecutors. It is very rare that a grand jury returns no true bill (no indictment). Grand jurors do have the ability to call witnesses of their choosing but rarely do because they don't know who to call as they are in the almost total control of the grand jury proceeding.

Grand jury proceedings have no judge and no opposing counsel. It is the grand jurors, the prosecutor and a court reporter. Defendants do have the right to testify in the grand jury if they so choose, but it is rarely beneficial (not always though)

I'm happy to explain the grand jury process more to you guys if needed. I expect to be sitting in court staring at my phone for a considerable amount of time tomorrow.

Been out of the legal life for awhile, and I appreciate your expertise.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

So if the grand jury deems there is enough to proceed does that mean its a definite the DA will go ahead? And if so that would mean an arrest will soon follow?

Yes and yes.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I agree with you that if there is no indictment, the DA can shrug his shoulders and say "Hey folks, I tried!"

If the grand jury returns no true bill the DA absolutely cannot proceed. This tactic you're describing is occasionally used in high profile cases. The kid who got shot in ferguson for example. Eric garner as well.

 

[Illinihockey]

That's a wrap on Kane's season. Prosecutor basically needs to purposefully not try in order to not get an indictment

 

[Kitty Hawk]

If the grand jury returns no true bill the DA absolutely cannot proceed. This tactic you're describing is occasionally used in high profile cases. The kid who got shot in ferguson for example. Eric garner as well.

Yup.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

Yes and yes.

So if its rare that a grand jury does not indict that means Kane is likely going to be charged. If Kane is charged he is not going to be playing with the Hawks for a long time, if ever. Wow........

Unbelievable, this was supposed to be an offseason of celebration. When I think of the cup winning team and now losing Sharp, Saad, Oduya, Richards, Vermette, and even Kane. If Kane did this he desereves whatever comes his way, just a complete idiot.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

So if its rare that a grand jury does not indict that means Kane is likely going to be charged. If Kane is charged he is not going to be playing with the Hawks for a long time, if ever. Wow........

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. He hasn't even been arrested.

 

[Kitty Hawk]

Unbelievable, this was supposed to be an offseason of celebration. When I think of the cup winning team and now losing Sharp, Saad, Oduya, Richards, Vermette, and even Kane. If Kane did this he deserves whatever comes his way, just a complete idiot.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Illinihockey]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. He hasn't even been arrested.

He wouldn't be until after the grand jury chose to charge him. Once they do, he will be

 

[Salvaged Ship]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. He hasn't even been arrested.

From what you are saying it sounds like its likely going to come to that unless they are purposely trying to get it thrown out to duck responsibility.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

He wouldn't be until after the grand jury chose to charge him. Once they do, he will be

No.

Typically someone is arrested prior to any grand jury action. It is abnormal to have a grand jury sit on a matter for which no arrest has been made (except in extensive conspiracies with ongoing conduct).

I speak from my experience as a criminal defense practitioner in New York, the very state in which this grand jury would be sitting.

If he is indicted, he would be arrested though. That part of what you said is true. That takes nothing away from the fact that it is of note that he remains out on the street.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

From what you are saying it sounds like its likely going to come to that unless they are purposely trying to get it thrown out to duck responsibility.

Well, it isn't always that black and white.

I don't mean to be critical and I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I think you're viewing this from a perspective of fear. The fact that a grand jury is sitting, if it actually even is, is not good for Kane. However it doesn't foreclose the possibility of no true bill.
Defendants testify and blow out cases all the time.

Every felony has to have a grand jury indictment (unless you waive the right to prosecution by grand jury) so naturally they are almost entirely rubber stamps. But the odds change dramatically when you testify and have good reason to testify.

I wouldn't start burning your 88 sweater. He hasn't even been arrested yet.

 

[Illinihockey]

No.

Typically someone is arrested prior to any grand jury action. It is abnormal to have a grand jury sit on a matter for which no arrest has been made (except in extensive conspiracies with ongoing conduct).

I speak from my experience as a criminal defense practitioner in New York, the very state in which this grand jury would be sitting.

If he is indicted, he would be arrested though. That part of what you said is true. That takes nothing away from the fact that it is of note that he remains out on the street.

Yes it's often the case but not always the case. For example, police officers like in the Michael brown case aren't arrested until charges are handed down by a grand jury. The fact that Kane hasn't been arrested really isn't instructive at all. If the DA wants Kane charged he'll be charged.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Can you think of any procedural reason why a DA might want to go to a grand jury before any arrest, broadway? With my limited legal knowledge, I can only really think of three circumstances:

1) Part of a larger criminal investigation, i.e. sorting out multiple potential indictees,
2) Crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's before formally arraigning a suspect, either as a fact-checking process or to avoid at least one stage of an obvious media circus, or
3) Wanting to pass the buck on not proceeding with a prosecution by saying that the grand jury determined there wasn't sufficient evidence while not arresting Kane and avoiding that whole media storm.

And to be clear, I am not an attorney. My main perspective on this has always been from the political sphere. My views tend to be more on how the prosecution would want to proceed with a case or not proceed in the best PR light.

 

[CoffeeKristin]

I'm curious if there's a reason they've subpoena'd the accuser's friend, per Levin? As I read the statute, there's no reason to use subpoena power but I'm unsure what the actual rule/practice is in New York state?

I've seen some speculation about the woman being unwilling to testify because she was subpoena'd. I don't think that's the case, but I thought others might know.

 

[Salvaged Ship]

Well, it isn't always that black and white.

I don't mean to be critical and I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I think you're viewing this from a perspective of fear. The fact that a grand jury is sitting, if it actually even is, is not good for Kane. However it doesn't foreclose the possibility of no true bill.
Defendants testify and blow out cases all the time.

Every felony has to have a grand jury indictment (unless you waive the right to prosecution by grand jury) so naturally they are almost entirely rubber stamps. But the odds change dramatically when you testify and have good reason to testify.

I wouldn't start burning your 88 sweater. He hasn't even been arrested yet.

I don't have an 88 sweater thankfully, would really be pissed if I did!

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Yes it's often the case but not always the case. For example, police officers like in the Michael brown case aren't arrested until charges are handed down by a grand jury. The fact that Kane hasn't been arrested really isn't instructive at all. If the DA wants Kane charged he'll be charged.

If the DA wanted him charged he would draw up a felony complaint and have the complaining witness sign a corroborating affidavit and Kane would be charged.

That hasn't happened.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at arguing with me. This is what I do for a living every day. If you think you know more you can take over answering peoples' questions. I'm trying to help folks understand criminal procedure, not engage in debate.