Why is a case bound over to a grand jury?
927259
It basically means that a majority of the Grand Jurors believed that the Prosecutor showed, by a preponderance of the evidence,  that a crime was committed and a certain individual, and/or individuals, committed it.  That's it.  It's then up to the trial judge or jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a particular person or persons committed the aforesaid crime.\nThe Prosecutor doesn't hold the case over - the Grand Jury does.  The Prosecutor simply presents it and the jurors make the decision.
203968
First you need to clarify what you need. Police don't indict, Grand Juries and Prosecutors' offices do. If you need and arrest record, it should be public knowledge and available from the arresting authority. ie: the sheriff's office, the city police dept. etc..If you need to know about a criminal indictment, it would be on file at the County Records for the Grand Jury that issued the indictment; if it was a local case, if it was a Federal Case you would have to locate the Federal Court House in Question and seek grand jury proceedings records there. If the indictment is for an unresolved case, (one that's pending) it may be sealed or unavailable for Public Review. Since this case is a couple of years old now, a records search should find it.
329846
First, it is important to note that not all prosecutors are elected.  In New Jersey, for example, the Prosecutor for each county is appointed by the governor.  And in the federal system, United States Attorneys are appointed by the President.  \n\nSecond, there are always checks on prosecutorial discretion.  This is the main purpose of the grand jury, which can decide not to hand up an indictment even after the prosecutor presents evidence.  \n\nFinally, if the public believes that a prosecutor is not faithfully executing his or her duties they can decide not to re-elect him or her.
49244
Jury trial is susceptible to typical biases that a vast majority of the public holds. It also becomes subjective and inconsistent. Composition of the jury, instead of nature of the alleged crime and the letter of law, becomes a critical factor in judgments. For a write-up on why jury trial was abolished in India, read\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_vs._State_of_Maharashtra
769752
You have to be arraigned before a trial, which could then find you guilty.  As far as I know, you have to be arrested to be arraigned.
981976
Grand jury investigations are secret; that's the point of a grand jury.  Illinois may be different, but in general grand jurors are sworn to secrecy and the case is not made known until the grand jury hands down an indictment.\n(The secrecy in part helps the defendant who may or may not be wrongly accused; that's why the grand jury is investigating--to see if there's probable cause to charge.)
1058791
If it is for jury duty, it's the luck of the draw, I am a Police Officer and have been selected 7 times in eight years, never made it to the jury....go figure. You can be subpoenaed for court cases as a witness as it is needed. I know people who have never been selected for duty. Makes you wonder how good the system is.
113333
If you are accused of a crime,a lot of people try to use this defence as away to get a lesser sentence.  They say that they were temporarily insane;not in their right frame of mind when they committed the crime. Then they usually have to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to gaet their input for court.
1178048
A lot has to do with the court system you are involved in, City courts tend to look at prior convictions as they are not court of records,the Judge decides your guilt or not guilty He dose not make judgments on Felony cases they are sent to Circuit Courts through the Grand Jury system. In these Courts, the process changes about prior convictions being brought up in the trail.
523465
The attorney presents evidence based on whatever they're arguing. It could be someone's testimony, but it could be other types of evidence. This is presented to the "trier of fact" in the case, which is going to be either the jury or the judge, who determines the truthfulness of each side's allegations based the testimony and also on the jury instructions.
1166249
The prosecution or side that is bringing the legal action - normally referred to as the Plaintiff - then the Defense closes - then the Prosecution gets to rebut and end.  Just so you know, the reason that the Prosecution or Plaintiff gets to go again is because the burden of proof is always on them so they are allowed to rebut your closing.
413380
ARRAIGNMENT, IT IS THE FIRST TIME YOU SEE THE JUDGE..AND THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH THE CHARGES...USUALLY UP TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE THEY WILL PROCEED IF NOT SOMETIMES THEY WONT. THEN TO TRIAL TO HERE BOTH SIDES OF EVIDENCE BUT BEFORE THAT  YOU DECIDE TRIAL BY JURY OR TRIAL BY JUDGE GO WITH JURY. THEN HOPEFULLY YOUR ATTORNEY WILL FILE MOTIONS TO HELP YOUR CASE SUCH AS MOTION TO SUPRESS EVIDENCE...THEN BOTH SIDES ARE HEARD AFTER JURY IS PICKED...THEN AFTER MANY MONTHS SOMETIMES A YEAR OR TWO VERDICT TIME IF YOU HAVE NOT STRUCK A PLEA BARGAIN....I HAVE BEEN TO TRIAL 3 TIMES AND WON ALL THREE .
424026
It prevents most kinds of hearsay evidence. The defendant must be able to confront the person who is supposed to have said various things. There are many exceptions to this rule.
642050
At this point, I find it hard to believe the judge would toss the jury and start over.  \n\nThat being said, some defendants and defense attorneys feel that certain crimes are better judged by a judge rather than a jury as the judge is more like to follow the law rather than allow his emotions to rule over his logic.  An example is one accused of a sex crime (especially against a child).  Juries have often disregarded exculpatory evidence in such cases.
508377
Grand jury is a big task, therefore work hard and read the following carefully:\n\nA jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.\n\nIn most criminal justice systems which require a jury, panels are initially selected at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.\n\nThe requirements for a jury are fairly universal. The number of jurors must be a specified size (usually twelve or fifteen), and since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial.\n\nServing on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.\n\nThe jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summing-up from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended.\n\nIn common law countries such as the England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.\n\nActual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.\n\nThe concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.\n\nSelection\nA common method for drafting jurors is to draw them at random from electoral rolls (known as allotment or sortition). The most common exclusions are for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, teachers, doctors, firefighters, people who themselves work in the criminal justice system), are caring for young children, have an interest in the case, are under the age of 18 years, or who have health problems or serious criminal records. In some jurisdictions in the United States, prior legal education or being a lawyer may also be a reason to
307252
In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government, or other establishment interest than would representatives of the state.\n\nIn the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials; the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial.
557418
The jury requirement only applies to the defendant, and I'm pretty sure it also only applies to criminal cases, not civil ones.