Archive for Thursday, March 6, 2008

Members of grand jury seek review

March 6, 2008

Advertisement

— A Johnson County grand jury that chose not to indict Planned Parenthood this week is calling for a review of the Kansas law that allows citizens to seek a grand jury.

Among the issues raised by the grand jury is that people seeking a grand jury are not required to have evidence backing their allegations.

The 15-member grand jury filed a report Wednesday that includes its recommendations concerning the jury petition process.

"It is the feeling of this grand jury that the current statute that addresses the formation of a grand jury be evaluated as to evidence required to call the grand jury," the jurors said in the report.

Cheryl Sullenger, spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said jurors are wrong for questioning the process and implying that the citizens who called for the grand jury lacked evidence.

"I think it's inappropriate of them," said Sullenger, whose group is part of the coalition that petitioned to get the jury. "They were convened under the current law, and they were asked to do a certain job. They never asked us for evidence.

"I challenge them on whether they fully investigated (Planned Parenthood). If they did, they would have asked the people who called for the petition if they had evidence."

The jurors convened in December after abortion opponents, through a petition, forced the court to convene the panel. The petition group followed a 1970 Kansas law that allows the public to seek such a jury by collecting signatures of registered voters.

Kansas is one of only six states where a petition by citizens can compel a county to convene a grand jury.

The jurors were asked to investigate whether Planned Parenthood's Overland Park clinic violated state restrictions on abortion and whether the clinic was illegally trafficking in fetal tissue.

They announced on Monday that they had concluded their investigation and had not found any wrongdoing on Planned Parenthood's part.

Comments

Bill Chapman 7 years, 2 months ago

I wonder just what she thought the court system is for - I was under the impression it was to prove or disprove a defendants' innocence with the use of something called EVIDENCE. Nice to know I wasn't the only person sleeping through all those civics classes.

Crossfire 7 years, 2 months ago

...and this new law would be... "Don't be a Twit Like Phill Law"

Bill Chapman 7 years, 2 months ago

Oh yes, I forgot - one other thing : If the law must stand and cannot be removed, than change the law so the petitioning members are jointly responsible for ALL expenses incurred by the convened Grand Jury, should the defendant be found innocent of the charges brought by the petitioners. Should the charges against the defendant be found valid, the expense will be covered by the local government. This should greatly help in preventing abuse of this law - every wants "their" law(s) (as they see it) to be enforced, but when it comes to actually having to PAY for that "law", they are usually very quiet about it.

bondmen 7 years, 2 months ago

Who gets to choose the grand jury members and what are their leanings with regard to abortion and infanticide? If grand jury members favor infanticide and abortion, is it any wonder no wrong doing was found? How could a determination of the facts be made without viewing the actual records? Court cases and jurors must rely on untainted evidence to make a proper judgment - which unfortunately doesn't appear to have happened here.

OfficeGirl 7 years, 2 months ago

Everyone has an opinion on this and feels strongly about it, regardless of which "side" they take. How would you convene a grand jury of unbiased people?

Crossfire 7 years, 1 month ago

Philll KKKlline... ...now Phill WWWhine.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.