The 5th amendment also applies, I believe, in grand jury proceedings, certainly in the federal court system. However, a person has a 5th amendment right to a grand jury for felony charges only in the Federal Court system, not in the State systems. I'm not positive, I haven't thought much about it, but had Zimmerman been indicted by a Grand Jury, I don't think the prosecution could have brought an additional charge at the last minute, because the Court has held that only under very limiting circumstances can the prosecution change the indictment of a grand jury. That is one way Zimmerman got screwed by Attorney Corey. She charged him with just a hearing, and did not use a grand jury, and Zimmerman, unfortunately for him, did not have a 5th amendment right to a grand jury in the state system. (Just one of many ways our criminal justice system is screwed up.) Had she used a grand jury, the grand jury probably would have decided that there was not enough evidence to charge him with second degree murder, and possibly not even enough evidence to charge him at all. (I suppose that's why she didn't allow him a grand jury.)
ah now you seem to finally understand what I have been pointing out to you for page after page. you might try supporting your statement with case law or statute. for instance... my read of this would say... that an oversight hearing... is not a legal proceeding... Generally if you do the research you will see legal proceeding are tribunals in which legal judgments are invoked. For instance ever definition I read on the net... and I read about 10 said something like this... Action or procedure instituted in a court of law to acquire a benefit, interest, or right or to enforce a remedy. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-proceeding.html#ixzz2ZX9Y7aN3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing Oversight hearings[edit] Oversight hearings review or study a law, issue, or an activity, often focusing on the quality of federal programs and the performance of government officials. Hearings also ensure that the executive branch's execution goes with legislative intent, while administrative policies reflect the public interest. Oversight hearings often seek to improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of government operations. A significant part of a committeeâs hearings workload is dedicated to oversight. For example, on a single day, May 8, 1996, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing to look into a recent increase in gasoline prices; the Committee on Governmental Affairs held an oversight hearing on the Internal Revenue Service; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held an oversight hearing on the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; and the Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the impact of a recent Supreme Court case involving Indian gaming. Many committees oversee existing programs in the context of hearings on related legislation, or routinely perform oversight when it is time to reauthorize a program, so oversight hearings may be combined with legislative hearings. Investigative hearings[edit] Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congressâs stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congressâs authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army-McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congressâs investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries.