Interesting- felony indicted buying guns

Planet24 said:
I was told years ago. The felon question on a purchase app violated the 5th ammendment. Lying was simply exercising your 5th right to not self incriminate by telling the truth. I wonder if obtaining is OK. Just dont possess your illegal firearm Lol. Think about it.
Click to expand...
The legal approach here would be to exercise your right and not check the box. If they reject the application because you did not answer, file suit. Committing perjury by filing out the form incorrectly is not exercising your 5th amendment protected right.
 
JimB said:
100%, given the facts as presented, they won’t be able to convict on possession if they can’t convict on the B&E. If they convict on the B&E proving that he took the oxy, then I don’t know how he’d get a not guilty on possession…he stole it but never possessed it…would you buy that if you were on the jury?
Click to expand...
But we're talking Charging. Would you charge someone with possessing something you never found in their possession if he is innocent until proven guilty?
 
Cowboy said:
But we're talking Charging. Would you charge someone with possessing something you never found in their possession if he is innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...
Yes.
The prosecutor believes that he can convict on all of the charges, he convinces the grand jury of that, and the guy gets charged. In this case they believe that they have sufficient evidence to prove possession even though they didn’t catch him red handed. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, the grand jury thinks they have enough to charge and the jury will ultimately decide.

The facts matter. If he was just a guy they picked up for jay walking who had no drugs, they’d be unable to charge with possession. In the scenario you describe there is sufficient evidence to charge the guy for stealing the drugs, so by extension there is enough to charge him with possessing them.
 
JimB said:
Yes.
The prosecutor believes that he can convict on all of the charges, he convinces the grand jury of that, and the guy gets charged. In this case they believe that they have sufficient evidence to prove possession even though they didn’t catch him red handed. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, the grand jury thinks they have enough to charge and the jury will ultimately decide.

The facts matter. If he was just a guy they picked up for jay walking who had no drugs, they’d be unable to charge with possession. In the scenario you describe there is sufficient evidence to charge the guy for stealing the drugs, so by extension there is enough to charge him with possessing them.
Click to expand...

I think you are still looking at a complete investigation in your thinking. Remember it doesn't go to a grand jury until the person has been charged. Going to the Grand jury is the proper way to do what you are saying. The GJ is after taking charges and were the DA can add charges they think they can prove which then the GJ would indict bringing the extra charges.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
I think you are still looking at a complete investigation in your thinking. Remember it doesn't go to a grand jury until the person has been charged. Going to the Grand jury is the proper way to do what you are saying. The GJ is after taking charges and were the DA can add charges they think they can prove which then the GJ would indict bringing the extra charges.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’m confused.
So the police arrest, and they provide information including suggested charges to the DA.
Doesn’t the DA decide on the charges to actually file, not the police?
Isn’t there some time, a few days, before the DA files charges and the arrested party first appears in court?
Doesn’t the arrested party have an attorney that can argue that the charges are baseless?
Isn’t there a judge that decides if the charges have merit at this stage and doesn’t he consider that when setting bail?
Then grand jury
Then motions
Then trial

The process is adversarial by design, and I just don’t see an advantage to inserting an additional limitation on the initial charges, or even what it would be based on. If the DA thinks he can prove it, then he can charge it, and if it’s entirely without merit, opposing counsel can move to have it dismissed.

Consider that a felon is charged with murdering someone. The victim was shot dead. What would be the advantage of having one trial to convict on murder, and then a second trial to convict on unlawful possession of a firearm? As with your example, if the first crime is not proven then the whole case falls apart as it should.
 
JimB said:
Okay, I’m confused.
So the police arrest, and they provide information including suggested charges to the DA.
Doesn’t the DA decide on the charges to actually file, not the police?
Isn’t there some time, a few days, before the DA files charges and the arrested party first appears in court?
Doesn’t the arrested party have an attorney that can argue that the charges are baseless?
Isn’t there a judge that decides if the charges have merit at this stage and doesn’t he consider that when setting bail?
Then grand jury
Then motions
Then trial

The process is adversarial by design, and I just don’t see an advantage to inserting an additional limitation on the initial charges, or even what it would be based on. If the DA thinks he can prove it, then he can charge it, and if it’s entirely without merit, opposing counsel can move to have it dismissed.

Consider that a felon is charged with murdering someone. The victim was shot dead. What would be the advantage of having one trial to convict on murder, and then a second trial to convict on unlawful possession of a firearm? As with your example, if the first crime is not proven then the whole case falls apart as it should.
Click to expand...
In NC someone commits a crime it's investigated. The officer decides if he has enough PC for a charge and then takes it to a magistrate who decides on PC. Then in a case like this B&E the investigation would continue. The person once arrested would then most likely be interviewed and depending on information more charges may be filed with magistrate. Officers are fact finders the Magistrate must determine PC. Then the case is taken to DA who will sometimes advise officers on bigger case a head of time but usually only the more serious cases. Then the defendant once arrested is taken in front of Magistrate for initial appearance and has bond set. They then get a first appearance when a district court judge notifies them of their rights and gives them a court appointed attorney if allowed. The district attorney then gets the case and they review the cases and then take it to the GJ with any additional charges they may want charged for an indictment. Then it goes to superior court.

That is a felony work flow for NC.
 
The issue in the OP was that the person was under indictment for a felony. There is a blanket denial of Second Amendment rights for anyone from the time they are indicted on felony charges until the conclusion of their trial. That does fly in the face of the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty.

An indictment is nothing but an accusation that a person committed a crime (And remember New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."). Depriving a person of a constitutional right solely on the basis of an accusation is bad enough, but it is particularly egregious when the wait for a trial can be a matter of years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom