A Quote by Sunny Hostin

As a former prosecutor, I never presented a case in front of the grand jury that didn't result in an indictment. Bottom line: If a prosecutor wants to indict a case, the case gets indicted.
Normally a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to.
The great joy of being a prosecutor is that you don't take whatever case walks in the door. You evaluate the case; you make your best judgement. You only go forward if you believe that the defendant is guilty.
Jayalalithaa was disqualified from contesting elections because of the Tansi case. I was the complainant. The public prosecutor conducted the case, but I provided all the documents and evidence. She was convicted. She could not contest elections, as her nomination papers were rejected.
Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum. Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?
Prosecutors are allowed to cherry-pick what evidence, if any, that they do present to a grand jury. So the grand jury process overall is flawed. And that's why it should not be utilized in this case and so many cases that are similar to this.
They've got him - credible witnesses, documents, heaven knows what else. In all my years as a prosecutor I have never seen such an open-and-shut case.
Ask any lawyer - if a prosecutor thinks he can win a case, he'll prosecute it.
A grand jury hears only one side - that of the prosecutor
A grand jury hears only one side - that of the prosecutor.
Usually, on sets, they'll have multiples of the same outfit, in case it gets damaged or in case it gets dirty and starts to smell weird.
Consumer wants can have bizarre, frivolous, or even immoral origins, and an admirable case can still be made for a society that seeks to satisfy them. But the case cannot stand if it is the process of satisfying wants that create the wants.
The Turkish judiciary has a very strong nationalist tradition, which is gradually changing, but only gradually. And since there was a nationalist outcry against Orhan Pamuk's remarks about Turkey's need to confront its past, I'm not surprised that one public prosecutor in an Istanbul borough should have decided to act. I don't expect the proceedings to lead to a conviction. But in any case one mustn't generalize and say that's the way Turkey behaves; it's the way one nationalist public prosecutor behaves.
What is the cause that one is hardened, and another readily moved to compunction? Listen! It springs from the will, in the latter case a good will, in the former an evil one. It springs also from the thoughts, in the former case evil thoughts, in the latter from the opposite; and similarly from actions, in the former case actions contrary to God, in the latter godly ones... it is by free choice of the will that every person either attains compunction and humility, or else becomes hard-hearted and proud.
No court presumes to tell a jury that they are to try a capital case with the same indifference and unconcern as to consequences, that they would a case where the results of their decision would be less important.
Unless you've ever been a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor handling a difficult homicide case, you cannot know what it's like to launch the type of investigation and come to the right conclusion.
Set up another case bartender! The best thing for a case of nerves is a case of Scotch.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!