ice

Somerset, KY

#1 Nov 16, 2011
does anyone no who they indited today
here ya go

London, KY

#2 Nov 16, 2011
There is a way to get it off the internet from the radio station, but not sure where to look, hopefully someone will post the ones they got and what for.
ice

Somerset, KY

#4 Nov 16, 2011
were they any sealed
you sound concerned

Lexington, KY

#5 Nov 16, 2011
ice wrote:
were they any sealed
sounds like your expecting to be picked up? what will they charge you with? what did you do?
Leona

London, KY

#6 Nov 17, 2011
No, Not expecting to be picked up, just wanting to know! Smart A--!
ice

Somerset, KY

#7 Nov 17, 2011
you no all about it dont you
the guardian

Somerset, KY

#8 Nov 17, 2011
Grand Juries? It would be nice if our system of justice was truly "just" and that one is truly considered "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a person is indicted by a Grand Jury without an opportunity to dispute any evidence presented by the Commonwealth Attorney which may often be biased and lack proper and thorough investigation, the indictment automatically makes that person presumed "guilty" until or unless he or she can prove their innocense, or in most cases plea bargains on the customary advice of most attorneys and accept a guilty plea even though they may be innoncent of the charge, but do not want to take a chance with a jury trial. This often keeps them in the legal system for years and continues to fill the pockets of the attorney profession and the the court system. Those that stand to be indicted by a Grand Jury should be called in by the Grand Jury (which they have the power to do) and allowed to present their side or any evidence prior to the Grand Jury decision on whether or not to vote for a formal indictment which can destroy a person's life even if he or she is determined to be innocent of the charge. I have served on Grand Juries before and in many cases felt that I would have liked to hear from the person about to be indicted before making that decision. I think that if you or I ever serve on a Grand Jury that we should call that person in and hear him or her out before voting on an indictment.
well

London, KY

#9 Nov 17, 2011
the guardian wrote:
Grand Juries? It would be nice if our system of justice was truly "just" and that one is truly considered "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a person is indicted by a Grand Jury without an opportunity to dispute any evidence presented by the Commonwealth Attorney which may often be biased and lack proper and thorough investigation, the indictment automatically makes that person presumed "guilty" until or unless he or she can prove their innocense, or in most cases plea bargains on the customary advice of most attorneys and accept a guilty plea even though they may be innoncent of the charge, but do not want to take a chance with a jury trial. This often keeps them in the legal system for years and continues to fill the pockets of the attorney profession and the the court system. Those that stand to be indicted by a Grand Jury should be called in by the Grand Jury (which they have the power to do) and allowed to present their side or any evidence prior to the Grand Jury decision on whether or not to vote for a formal indictment which can destroy a person's life even if he or she is determined to be innocent of the charge. I have served on Grand Juries before and in many cases felt that I would have liked to hear from the person about to be indicted before making that decision. I think that if you or I ever serve on a Grand Jury that we should call that person in and hear him or her out before voting on an indictment.
so yo want to have the trial first.well it might speed things up.
the guardian

East Bernstadt, KY

#10 Nov 17, 2011
No...just saying that in some situations where Grand Jurors have questions as to... if there is enough evidence or not, they often go ahead and indict, thus making that person presumed quilty until he or she can hire a lawyer or have the state pay for one to help prove his or her inoncense, or as I said in most cases, accept a plea baargain or deal. The whole judicial and penal system is out of control and in need of reform.
JUST CURIOUS

London, KY

#11 Nov 17, 2011
the guardian wrote:
Grand Juries? It would be nice if our system of justice was truly "just" and that one is truly considered "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a person is indicted by a Grand Jury without an opportunity to dispute any evidence presented by the Commonwealth Attorney which may often be biased and lack proper and thorough investigation, the indictment automatically makes that person presumed "guilty" until or unless he or she can prove their innocense, or in most cases plea bargains on the customary advice of most attorneys and accept a guilty plea even though they may be innoncent of the charge, but do not want to take a chance with a jury trial. This often keeps them in the legal system for years and continues to fill the pockets of the attorney profession and the the court system. Those that stand to be indicted by a Grand Jury should be called in by the Grand Jury (which they have the power to do) and allowed to present their side or any evidence prior to the Grand Jury decision on whether or not to vote for a formal indictment which can destroy a person's life even if he or she is determined to be innocent of the charge. I have served on Grand Juries before and in many cases felt that I would have liked to hear from the person about to be indicted before making that decision. I think that if you or I ever serve on a Grand Jury that we should call that person in and hear him or her out before voting on an indictment.
Thank you "guardian" Your post makes more sense than any I've seen for a long time concerning the Wayne county judcial system. I served on the jury once not long ago. It was sickening just how many came into court and faced the Judge for crimes they didn't commit. But in some cases they plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than face a jury of angry people who didn't want to be there anyway.

As you said, If the grand jury were allowed to hear the accused's side of the story, It just might save a lot of needless time in the court room. Thereby saving the taxpayers money. But then, Probably not. But at least some that were not guilty would not be destroyed by lies.
finally common sense

London, KY

#12 Nov 18, 2011
the guardian wrote:
Grand Juries? It would be nice if our system of justice was truly "just" and that one is truly considered "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a person is indicted by a Grand Jury without an opportunity to dispute any evidence presented by the Commonwealth Attorney which may often be biased and lack proper and thorough investigation, the indictment automatically makes that person presumed "guilty" until or unless he or she can prove their innocense, or in most cases plea bargains on the customary advice of most attorneys and accept a guilty plea even though they may be innoncent of the charge, but do not want to take a chance with a jury trial. This often keeps them in the legal system for years and continues to fill the pockets of the attorney profession and the the court system. Those that stand to be indicted by a Grand Jury should be called in by the Grand Jury (which they have the power to do) and allowed to present their side or any evidence prior to the Grand Jury decision on whether or not to vote for a formal indictment which can destroy a person's life even if he or she is determined to be innocent of the charge. I have served on Grand Juries before and in many cases felt that I would have liked to hear from the person about to be indicted before making that decision. I think that if you or I ever serve on a Grand Jury that we should call that person in and hear him or her out before voting on an indictment.
AMEN
hold up

Manchester, KY

#15 Nov 18, 2011
For 1 u must have some big grapefruits talking about out elected officals and assistants! I really wouldnt want to be in your shoes when our elected officals get done with u!!!!( Male or female your luck ran out!) lol Ill say a prayer for you!(You will need it!!!)
true

Sheridan, AR

#37 Dec 2, 2011
The Wayne County "Judicial System" is a joke in itself. There is at least 1 completely innocent man sitting in jail right now over false accusations. But, they didn't mind to arrest him and hurt his family and basically ruin his life while we all sit here hurting, without bothering to check into their facts to know what an injustice it is...:(
true

Sheridan, AR

#38 Dec 2, 2011
JUST CURIOUS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you "guardian" Your post makes more sense than any I've seen for a long time concerning the Wayne county judcial system. I served on the jury once not long ago. It was sickening just how many came into court and faced the Judge for crimes they didn't commit. But in some cases they plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than face a jury of angry people who didn't want to be there anyway.
As you said, If the grand jury were allowed to hear the accused's side of the story, It just might save a lot of needless time in the court room. Thereby saving the taxpayers money. But then, Probably not. But at least some that were not guilty would not be destroyed by lies.
THIS IS THE MOST TRUE STATEMENT I HAVE EVER SEEN. Our family has been distroyed by false accusations and lies. Our loved one sits in jail right now because no one bothered to get his side, check the facts. Just an accusation. Now an innocent man sits in jail while his wife is completely distraught and trying to keep it together, his tiny baby misses it's daddy. This is NOT right nor in any way fair. In this county you can go and claim anything on ANYONE and they will be arrested, forced to obtain an expensive lawyer, and their whole life will be basically ruined. Then, hopefully this person will get justice and the truth will be found...but the damage will already, is already, done. So very very sad.
true

Sheridan, AR

#43 Dec 3, 2011
Im sorry didn't mean to sound snippy at all. Please understand I didn't mean to b that way. Very on edge lately. Truly sorry hon. Every time I have posted about this someone comes n here n asks who he is. Idk.
I agree

London, KY

#44 Dec 8, 2011
the guardian wrote:
Grand Juries? It would be nice if our system of justice was truly "just" and that one is truly considered "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a person is indicted by a Grand Jury without an opportunity to dispute any evidence presented by the Commonwealth Attorney which may often be biased and lack proper and thorough investigation, the indictment automatically makes that person presumed "guilty" until or unless he or she can prove their innocense, or in most cases plea bargains on the customary advice of most attorneys and accept a guilty plea even though they may be innoncent of the charge, but do not want to take a chance with a jury trial. This often keeps them in the legal system for years and continues to fill the pockets of the attorney profession and the the court system. Those that stand to be indicted by a Grand Jury should be called in by the Grand Jury (which they have the power to do) and allowed to present their side or any evidence prior to the Grand Jury decision on whether or not to vote for a formal indictment which can destroy a person's life even if he or she is determined to be innocent of the charge. I have served on Grand Juries before and in many cases felt that I would have liked to hear from the person about to be indicted before making that decision. I think that if you or I ever serve on a Grand Jury that we should call that person in and hear him or her out before voting on an indictment.
I totally agree with you! If the grand jury could hear the other side, then they have the opportunity to actually make a decision on behalf of the truth!! When, all they hear is what someone said, only one-sided, many innocent persons have to go through he**, going to court, going to trial, because anyone that is truly innocent, will not take the plea bargaining offered to them, because the person would be lying, to say that they were actually guilty...the court system seems to be a joke! The only thing they worry about is making that money on fines. Otherwise, all these meth-heads would stay in jail , where they belong, instead of a slap on the wrist & pay those fines......it is truly sickening to actually see our court system at work....
jsa

Las Vegas, NV

#46 Aug 29, 2014
Read the 10th amendment, it forces the court's to use a grand jury to indice an individual, way before a trial!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monticello Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 min Mike Duquette 132,181
Darryl S 1 hr who cares 4
What's open? Thu old fart 1
When does new jailer take over Dec 23 Maury 22
Question for the city police. Dec 23 pretty boy 6
Gas fireplace repair (Oct '12) Dec 21 roger 8
Your own comments are pushing your post to the... Dec 20 Charlie 2
Monticello Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monticello People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Monticello News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monticello

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Bengals Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Steelers
NBC Sports 4:25 AM
Andy Dalton returns to practice, but other Bengals still sick
NBC Sports 8:25 AM
A.J. Green present at Cincinnati's Friday practice
Bleacher Report10:03 AM
Eifert out for Season After Having Recent Shoulder Surgery
ESPN11:57 AM
Bengals TE Eifert will not return this season