philliesheat6

Is there any reason to believe there was even a single instance of perjury? Anything at all? Keeping in mind that perjury is an intentional lie, that honest confusion or mistake is not perjury (so "what you said suggests Y, but really not-Y" isn't automatically perjury), that nothing besides sworn testimony can be perjury, that honest opinions by experts disagree *all the time*, and that honest eyewitness reports conflict *all the time*, is there anything that would actually be perjury?

Furthermore, the grand jury found that it's improbable that a crime was committed. To count that as "proof" in a criminal trial for perjury, you'd have to have it beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally lied - the grand jury's finding is not to the standard needed. But even then, the fact that I said something suggesting X is true, when X is really false, does not necessarily mean I lied.

Incidentally: The quote from the US Constitution that you posted (about grand juries being required) is utterly irrelevant in the states. It's among the handful of elements of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated to the states; states need not use grand juries, and most don't in most cases. It seems like it's common in St. Louis County to use a grand jury, but it's by no means required -- a prosecutor can instead have a preliminary hearing, in which the prosecutor presents evidence to the judge to try to show probable cause. In those hearings, the defendant gets to be there, with a lawyer representing them, and with the right to cross-examine witnesses. This could legally have been done in this case; it's not necessarily usual, but there is absolutely no right under the US Constitution or the constitution of Missouri to have a grand jury.

Hey Opulence, come talk to me on my teamspeak & I'll see if I can help you out there bud.
-johnson