Chapter 4 and 5 Book Questions
Chapter 4&5
1. According to the author, what makes the use of grand juries attractive to prosecutors? How does this explain their use when it comes to investigations of controversial militant behavior?
1. Grand jurys have the ability to pursue investigations even when crimes have not been committed.
2. Witnesses called before the grand jury can be aggressively be questioned with no lawyer present.
3. Proceeding by indictment uses the grand jury’s legitimacy and prestige to generate support
By allowing the 3 rules listed above many investigations with militant behavior were often abused.
2. Explain the authors attention to the racial composition of grand jury's in Los Angeles as selected by the judges, what is the assertion he is leading to and why is this significant to the East LA 13 case?
1. The assertion being made by the author in that the grand jury were nothing more than close friends or acquaintances, therefore it lacked the a diversity of people that served. Having those who served allowed inequality in the judicial process and was why the East LA 13 case was significant in that it pointed out the inequalities in the system.
3. What is the conclusion the author makes about the entire justice system?
He starts off by making the statement that gender and political party affiliations show the social biases that judge’s selection of grand jurors have. The CTLA also proved that jurors were selected through acquaintanceship that obviously discriminated against Mexicans.
4. Explain what Acosta labored to show when it came to Equal Protection, how did he explain this? What was his position when it came to intentional discrimination?
What Acosta labored to show under equal protection was that judges, despite “knowing” Mexicans never wanted to include them in the grand jury. By proving that judges failed to select people of surname in the grand jury he was proving racism. By choosing their own acquaintances judges never gave anyone else a shot. Sadly
1. According to the author, what makes the use of grand juries attractive to prosecutors? How does this explain their use when it comes to investigations of controversial militant behavior?
1. Grand jurys have the ability to pursue investigations even when crimes have not been committed.
2. Witnesses called before the grand jury can be aggressively be questioned with no lawyer present.
3. Proceeding by indictment uses the grand jury’s legitimacy and prestige to generate support
By allowing the 3 rules listed above many investigations with militant behavior were often abused.
2. Explain the authors attention to the racial composition of grand jury's in Los Angeles as selected by the judges, what is the assertion he is leading to and why is this significant to the East LA 13 case?
1. The assertion being made by the author in that the grand jury were nothing more than close friends or acquaintances, therefore it lacked the a diversity of people that served. Having those who served allowed inequality in the judicial process and was why the East LA 13 case was significant in that it pointed out the inequalities in the system.
3. What is the conclusion the author makes about the entire justice system?
He starts off by making the statement that gender and political party affiliations show the social biases that judge’s selection of grand jurors have. The CTLA also proved that jurors were selected through acquaintanceship that obviously discriminated against Mexicans.
4. Explain what Acosta labored to show when it came to Equal Protection, how did he explain this? What was his position when it came to intentional discrimination?
What Acosta labored to show under equal protection was that judges, despite “knowing” Mexicans never wanted to include them in the grand jury. By proving that judges failed to select people of surname in the grand jury he was proving racism. By choosing their own acquaintances judges never gave anyone else a shot. Sadly