Hey, thanks for the responses and especially the case name
I found a small error on my taxes, so I haven’t had much spare time to dive into the stuff …. been busy with voluntary compliance obligations(isn’t that self-contradictory?).
Anyway, a cursory read was pretty interesting. I particularly liked the dissent, go figure...
The Hurtado decision appears to center on a pragmatic view that it was not necessary to overturn a conviction where an alternate form of due process exists in State law. … kind of a "it would’ve happened anyway, so let’s leave it alone" or "separate but equal guarantees of due process"?. In Hurtado it could be shown the official overseeing the indictment acted on the basis of clear information before him and there was little (if any) infamy (under common law definition) attached to the murder. IMHO "the system worked" in Hurtado; not because of any guarantee to due process, but thanks to a conscientious official. What I’m wondering most about are cases that did not have clear evidence at indictment and where there was a possible ulterior motive for an official to indict.
Does anyone know of a case concerning wrongful prosecution brought before SCOTUS where a person was found not guilty at trial and brought suit against a State because he wasn’t indicted by a Grand Jury?
Sorry if it seems like I’m being thick-headed about this, but rest assured your responses are much appreciated and that I am trying to learn the details of the SCOTUS logic here.
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...