Tamir Rice grand jury never took a vote to indict cops who killed him: report

The grand jury tasked with deciding whether or not to indict Cleveland police officers Frank Garmback and Timothy Loehmann in connection with 12-year-old Tamir Rice’s death never actually voted on the matter, Cleveland Scene magazine reported on Wednesday. “If it is true that the prosecutor didn’t even call for an up or down vote on potential criminal charges, including aggravated murder, then it is truly the ultimate insult to the Rice family,” said an attorney for the child’s family, Subodh Chandra. “The prosecutor didn’t even think it mattered to bring the grand jury proceedings to their proper conclusion.” Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty announced on Dec. 28 that the jurors had “declined to indict” the two officers. But according to Cleveland Scene, officials with the county clerk’s office said that there is no document on file showing how the decision was reached.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/tamir-rice-grand-jury-never-voted-not-to-indict-cops-who-killed-him-report/

It is legally improper, but as with all grand jury proceedings, it is one-sided. Who is there to appeal the decision? The prosecutor who was doing the white-washing?

I am just shocked it did not even get to a vote.
Completely wrong Quill

Didge wrote:I am just shocked it did not even get to a vote.
Completely wrong Quill

I absolutely agree. The premise of Anglo-American law is that it is adversarial. It recognizes that every legal question has two sides to it.

When you set up a proceeding in which only one side is heard, it violates the notion of fairness and due process of law. The grand jury is one such setting. What you are seeing in the case of Tamir Rice is but one example. It happened in the Michael Brown case, as well.

Although here the conflict-of-interest was with the prosecutor, you see this every day with respect to blacks and law enforcement. Writ large, the state is supposed to be a neutral. But it hardly is in these large social questions.

Can not anything be done now?

Didge wrote:Can not anything be done now?

Many states have overturned the grand jury process, and more are looking that way.  One can hope.

What typically happens is then the Federal Government steps in and takes over the prosecution.  But not under the same law (eg, homicide, or assault, etc.).  They use a Civil Rights law (42 USC 1981, et seq.), written originally in 1871 (Civil Rights Act of 1871).  So a whole new proceeding must take place.  Also, federal law requires some sort of hate crime or something that shows racial animus.  While we all know it is there, no one is willing to step forward and say it.  For this reason civil rights cases are difficult to prove and must rely upon circumstantial evidence.

Someone really needs to step up and take this on then Quill, in my book because to me questions still need answering, no matter the outcome, at least then all the evidence can be fully heard out.

Didge wrote:Someone really needs to step up and take this on then Quill, in my book because to me questions still need answering, no matter the outcome, at least then all the evidence can be fully heard out.

I agree. And it happens even more frequently in the south. It's not just the grand jury system, although that is structurally infirm. It was frustrating for me to grow up in the civil rights era (1954-1969) and read about jury-after-jury letting murders off the hook in North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. And it still goes on, as you see.