Legal Stuff Is Hard

If it's like other states, the grand jury is made up of ordinary citizens ("men in the street") who look at the facts as presented and decide -- based on their understanding of the statutes -- whether there's a case against the defendant.

Evidently these citizens looked at the evidence, looked at the statutes, and decided there was enough evidence to go forward.

rachelrachel,
There has been no jury - there have been no "these citizens". The ones involved right now are the lawyers. These quotes are the defence lawyers arguments to a judge to get it thrown out so no "men on the street" get a chance to rule on these indictments.

Of course there was a grand jury that made the indictment.

Texas grand jury indicts DeLay again

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury on Monday re-indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering after the former majority leader attacked last week’s indictment on technical grounds.The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contained two counts. The money laundering charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison. The charge of conspiracy to launder money is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Texas Constitution, Article 5, Section 12

An indictment is a written instrument presented to a court by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of an offense. An information is a written instrument presented to a court by an attorney for the State charging a person with the commission of an offense. The practice and procedures relating to the use of indictments and informations, including their contents, amendment, sufficiency, and requisites, are as provided by law. The presentment of an indictment or information to a court invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause. (Amended Aug. 11, 1891, and Nov. 5, 1985.)

In states that have a grand-jury system, a defendant may face two juries, each of which are made up of ordinary citizens. The grand jury is the one that makes the indictment. Their task is to look at the evidence as presented and determine if there's a prima facie case against the defendant. The burden of proof is low and there are no defense attorneys, defense witnesses, or cross-examination.

Once indicted, the defendant may appear before what is called a trial jury or petit jury. The trial jury that is often simply called "the jury." Here, we have strict rules of evidence, cross-examination, and a lot of other protections to ensure a fair trial. To be convicted, a defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard that for the indictment.

At this stage, Mr. DeLay has been indicted by one panel of citizens and may be tried by another panel. (Or he can plead guilty. In some states -- I don't know about Texas -- a defendant could request a bench trial.)

The argument that the laws are too complicated for ordinary citizens to understand is laughable and misses the whole point of the grand jury.

Rachel is absolutely right - there has been a grand jury who has evaluated the prosecution's case and decided there was probable cause.

The argument that the "man on the street" can't understand the law and, therefore, the law shouldn't be applied to those who deal with election law for a living, is absolutely absurd.

I've only heard of one law that has been torn apart on the basis of its complexity -- any lawyer can tell you what it is, but few can explain it. That would be the "Rule Against Perpetuities". Absolutely one of the worst legal concepts ever. I've even read a case where a lawyer avoided a malpractice suit because a court found that no lawyer should be expected to apply the rule correctly. It's a good thing it doesn't apply in most states today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities