the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
That is not what was said in a previous post on this thread which said the suspect does not have the right to testify..
My comments were based in this:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
A a state we're authorizing police to use deadly force if certain legal requirements are met. absent a clear disregard or violation of those requirements, should police officers be perceived as criminals with respect to their use of deadly force? Does that put an unreasonable burden on a police officer in a life and death situation?
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
I see just the opposite. It failed to protect Wilson as it normally would. It seemed clear to me that the prosecutor did not see the evidence to actually send it to a grand jury and certainly not a conviction but was unwilling to take the heat for dismissing it. This bowing to public pressure is what originally subverted the grand jury system. This then led to the following subversion of the system of not vigorously trying to get him indicted. A public servant much now try to convict a person he believes to be clearly innocent. OK for a defense attorney to be in this position for a defense of a client he believes is guilty but not for a public s rant seeking justice for all sides. In this position it is hard for me to be critical of not pushing something he does not believe in. Frankly it seems like the honorable thing to do once it got to this point. Certainly not honorable to support what he considers lies and things conflicting with the physical evidence.
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
I see just the opposite. It failed to protect Wilson as it normally would. It seemed clear to me that the prosecutor did not see the evidence to actually send it to a grand jury and certainly not a conviction but was unwilling to take the heat for dismissing it. This bowing to public pressure is what originally subverted the grand jury system. This then led to the following subversion of the system of not vigorously trying to get him indicted. A public servant much now try to convict a person he believes to be clearly innocent. OK for a defense attorney to be in this position for a defense of a client he believes is guilty but not for a public s rant seeking justice for all sides. In this position it is hard for me to be critical of not pushing something he does not believe in. Frankly it seems like the honorable thing to do once it got to this point. Certainly not honorable to support what he considers lies and things conflicting with the physical evidence.
Go back to the Trayvon fiasco. Local authorities don't arrest Zimmerman right away. State by passes a GJ and appoints a special prosecutor. A made for tv trial is put on. Here on BBI, a running thread as the case went on was just like a game day thread. Hell, stand your ground was put on trial and it was never alleged as a defense by any anyone.
Ended up being the locals were correct.
I think that case played a big part in sending this to a GJ.
He knew he didn't have a case. If he didn't send it to a GJ, the results would be the same.
many are saying it should go trial so that everything is in the open to satisfy the mob. If anyone here actually thinks a jury trial which will most likely not result in conviction will satisfy the mob, l have a bridge to sell them. Just kicking the anger further down the road in the future. If you listen to many of the interviews on TV, it is clear that what is wanted is vegeance, not justice.
zimmerman who was private citizen who put himself in that position, after being informed he didn't need to. private citizens detaining/encountering other citizens unnecessarily,and armed with a gun when doing so. you're ok with him playing cop and stopping Trayvon because he was a thug or looked like one, or something like that. I'm not because my grandsons and nephew look like Trayvon. But, I'm not okay with people like him stopping young white kids. It was a situation that had the potential to end badly, and did.
re: Wilson - gj does not bother me as, in some jurisdictions, this is a common way of reviewing officer involved shootings.
re: the outcome - not so sure I buy Wilson's account of what transpired as 100% accurate. but, that does not necessarily make it a murder, or even a crime. but, gj has spoken and that's that.
more bothered, but not surprised, by the reaction of a lot of white people but it is the typical reaction after events like this and Trayvon etc. and typically follows one of three general themes -
1) He was a thug who had it coming
2) The person may not have been a thug but the reaction was understandable because he looked like people who are thugs
3) maybe it should not have happened or regardless of whether it should have happened, impact is deflected by pointing to high levels of black on black crime.
bothered or not - that's the country we live in. far from a post-racial society. with suspicion, distrust, and dislike/hate lying right underneath the surface - ready to ooze out due to events like this.
It should be mentioned that Scalia is a federal judge Â
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
RE: I don't know whoever said potential defendants do not have a right... Â
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
Justice Scalia said it.
Scalia is saying that it is rare for a suspect to appear and testify willingly. It is rare for the very reasons Mike stated.
However, none of that should lead anyone to conclude that the prosecuting attorney " threw the match" which is how I construed what several were suggesting on this thread.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
"Some critics of that decision find fault with the fact that Wilson’s lengthy account of what happened went essentially unchallenged by prosecutors. Some wonder why he testified at all, since targets in the vast majority of criminal investigations do not testify before the grand jury.
In fact, it is standard operating procedure to permit a potential target to testify in the grand jury if he wishes to do so."
about how a grand jury works. Generally speaking, where a defendant is indicted directly, without being charged by warrant and given a preliminary hearing, the defendant usually has no idea that a grand jury is even weighing his indictment. People who have a vague or even a very good understanding of how a grand jury works at the federal level or in particular states do not necessarily share a similar understanding of how it works everywhere else.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
Mike, #1 that's NY, not Missouri. #2, Your quote says "defendant" because in the scenario described in your link the guy had already been charged with the crime. That shoe doesn't fit Darren Wilson since he was not charged.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
this was an investigation of the facts, not just a presentation of the Prosecutions case. Although he really didn't have a case if you consider the forensics and the witnesses that testimony match the forensics and Wilson's statement.
nonetheless, you have to look at those FBI stings with a skeptical eye - for example, the Newburgh terrorist case may have contained some really questionable investigative techniques.
RE: Most GJ are just rubber stamps for the prosecution Â
this was an investigation of the facts, not just a presentation of the Prosecutions case. Although he really didn't have a case if you consider the forensics and the witnesses that testimony match the forensics and Wilson's statement.
He never presented a case, He never did his job which is to "Prosecute"
I have always said the bigger issue is the fact that there isn't enough accountability over officers, and that complaints against them go uninvestigated.
This article I read on Vice really seemed to align with my concerns.
It tells the story of 2 men, both white, who were beaten by off duty police officers. The uniformed police who came to the seen basically escorted the assaulters away and told the victims to deal with it. They then go into the story of how they've been trying to fight to hold their attackers accountable.
Due to my reputation as a cop hater, I want to go ahead and point out 2 major things that sat wrong with me in the article first:
1) I find it hard to believe their claims of PTSD from getting beaten up
2) They don't go into enough depth of exactly how the encounter with the off duty cops started.
However, this article does show a lot of the institutional inertia and uphill battle anyone who looks to file a serious complaint, or really any complaint, against law enforcement typically faces.
They have a video of the assault, the financial resources to hire a well respected law firm, and PR connections to draw media attention, but were still unable to get their attackers identified or get any punitive measures placed on the attackers or the police who let them go.
Interesting article, and might make people realize how little recourse poor minorities have when trying to fight against alleged potential police brutality.
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
Well that is not exactly correct. He decided to go the GJ route only after the media attention to the story. At that point as the prosecuting attorney his job is to present and explain the evidence. He dumped everything on them and did no explaining to them, even to the point where he never explained the different charges that could be handed down. He also gave to the Jurors prior to Wilson testifying, an outdated statue claiming that a fleeing suspect may be shot. That statue was struck down in 1985 statue. They waited 2 months to correct that claim and corrected it only 2 days prior to the verdict. So you have 2 months of the jury looking at all the evidence with the idea that afleeing suspect is a justified shooting
He did such a biased job that the National Bar Association is demanding Federal Charges against Wilson wants his head
The GJ was used to cover his ass and it was a complete sham
An African American bar association says he should have been indicted, bfd. That's not an association of criminal law specialists, a and even if it was it is clearly a political gesture. There were some issues with the GJ, but at the end of the day you don't pursue charges if you don't think they are warranted. Period. To do otherwise is unethical.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
No it's not silly. People are biased. I hate to break that to you. I don't think the police union will be asking Holder to press charges. I expect the opposite. And yes that applies to white people who are supporting him based on skin color, not the fact presented to the grand jury.
The grand jury, by law, looks at the sworn testimony and evidence presented to them. By law, the grand jury proceedings are secret as is the vote to issue a indictment or not. That the GI stayed over a month past their service time and deliberated so long leads me to believe they took their duty seriously. IMHO
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
And for Wilson, if he was innocent the result would have been the same even if the DA/ADA had assumed he was guilty. If it had gone to a jury trial and he had been acquitted the same shit would have gone down (just a year or so later), his life would still be in danger and he still would have had to resign from the Ferguson PD with no hope for a job in law enforcement in the future.
RE: The DA/ADA did Wilson no favors, assuming he was innocent. Â
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Again, none of that would have changed if he went on trial. He left his job because of threats. Do you think if he was indicted that would be different?
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
RE: Yes, I think it would have been very different. Â
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
With the citizens of Ferguson you can make the argument, though I disagree. But do you think the white anarchists with their Guy Fawkes masks and the New Black Panthers would give a rat's ass about a trial if the verdict didn't come out the way they wanted? I'm amazed you'd believe that.
RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor: I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officerLINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about thatLINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
RE: Yes, I think it would have been very different. Â
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
Because everyone believed OJ was innocent as soon as all the facts came out, you know, because a jury acquitted him. Come on. If he was convicted one side would cry miscarriage of justice, if he was acquitted the other would cry the same.
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
My comments were based in this:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week."
Link - ( New Window )
Thanks all.
Quote:
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
Go back to the Trayvon fiasco. Local authorities don't arrest Zimmerman right away. State by passes a GJ and appoints a special prosecutor. A made for tv trial is put on. Here on BBI, a running thread as the case went on was just like a game day thread. Hell, stand your ground was put on trial and it was never alleged as a defense by any anyone.
Ended up being the locals were correct.
I think that case played a big part in sending this to a GJ.
He knew he didn't have a case. If he didn't send it to a GJ, the results would be the same.
re: Wilson - gj does not bother me as, in some jurisdictions, this is a common way of reviewing officer involved shootings.
re: the outcome - not so sure I buy Wilson's account of what transpired as 100% accurate. but, that does not necessarily make it a murder, or even a crime. but, gj has spoken and that's that.
more bothered, but not surprised, by the reaction of a lot of white people but it is the typical reaction after events like this and Trayvon etc. and typically follows one of three general themes -
1) He was a thug who had it coming
2) The person may not have been a thug but the reaction was understandable because he looked like people who are thugs
3) maybe it should not have happened or regardless of whether it should have happened, impact is deflected by pointing to high levels of black on black crime.
bothered or not - that's the country we live in. far from a post-racial society. with suspicion, distrust, and dislike/hate lying right underneath the surface - ready to ooze out due to events like this.
Had to get that off my chest.
Justice Scalia said it.
Joe Scarborough - ( New Window )
Quote:
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
Justice Scalia said it.
Scalia is saying that it is rare for a suspect to appear and testify willingly. It is rare for the very reasons Mike stated.
However, none of that should lead anyone to conclude that the prosecuting attorney " threw the match" which is how I construed what several were suggesting on this thread.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case."
Link - ( New Window )
In fact, it is standard operating procedure to permit a potential target to testify in the grand jury if he wishes to do so."
Link - ( New Window )
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
Mike, #1 that's NY, not Missouri. #2, Your quote says "defendant" because in the scenario described in your link the guy had already been charged with the crime. That shoe doesn't fit Darren Wilson since he was not charged.
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
An informative article from the WSJ ...
Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats - ( New Window )
He never presented a case, He never did his job which is to "Prosecute"
This article I read on Vice really seemed to align with my concerns.
It tells the story of 2 men, both white, who were beaten by off duty police officers. The uniformed police who came to the seen basically escorted the assaulters away and told the victims to deal with it. They then go into the story of how they've been trying to fight to hold their attackers accountable.
Due to my reputation as a cop hater, I want to go ahead and point out 2 major things that sat wrong with me in the article first:
1) I find it hard to believe their claims of PTSD from getting beaten up
2) They don't go into enough depth of exactly how the encounter with the off duty cops started.
However, this article does show a lot of the institutional inertia and uphill battle anyone who looks to file a serious complaint, or really any complaint, against law enforcement typically faces.
They have a video of the assault, the financial resources to hire a well respected law firm, and PR connections to draw media attention, but were still unable to get their attackers identified or get any punitive measures placed on the attackers or the police who let them go.
Interesting article, and might make people realize how little recourse poor minorities have when trying to fight against alleged potential police brutality.
Vice: City of Silence - ( New Window )
Well that is not exactly correct. He decided to go the GJ route only after the media attention to the story. At that point as the prosecuting attorney his job is to present and explain the evidence. He dumped everything on them and did no explaining to them, even to the point where he never explained the different charges that could be handed down. He also gave to the Jurors prior to Wilson testifying, an outdated statue claiming that a fleeing suspect may be shot. That statue was struck down in 1985 statue. They waited 2 months to correct that claim and corrected it only 2 days prior to the verdict. So you have 2 months of the jury looking at all the evidence with the idea that afleeing suspect is a justified shooting
He did such a biased job that the National Bar Association is demanding Federal Charges against Wilson wants his head
The GJ was used to cover his ass and it was a complete sham
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
Quote:
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
Quote:
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
Quote:
In comment 12015978 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
No it's not silly. People are biased. I hate to break that to you. I don't think the police union will be asking Holder to press charges. I expect the opposite. And yes that applies to white people who are supporting him based on skin color, not the fact presented to the grand jury.
The grand jury, by law, looks at the sworn testimony and evidence presented to them. By law, the grand jury proceedings are secret as is the vote to issue a indictment or not. That the GI stayed over a month past their service time and deliberated so long leads me to believe they took their duty seriously. IMHO
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Wilson has no skills that would make him attractive or useful to a TV audience, except maybe on a hunting or military channel.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
And for Wilson, if he was innocent the result would have been the same even if the DA/ADA had assumed he was guilty. If it had gone to a jury trial and he had been acquitted the same shit would have gone down (just a year or so later), his life would still be in danger and he still would have had to resign from the Ferguson PD with no hope for a job in law enforcement in the future.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Again, none of that would have changed if he went on trial. He left his job because of threats. Do you think if he was indicted that would be different?
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
With the citizens of Ferguson you can make the argument, though I disagree. But do you think the white anarchists with their Guy Fawkes masks and the New Black Panthers would give a rat's ass about a trial if the verdict didn't come out the way they wanted? I'm amazed you'd believe that.
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
Because everyone believed OJ was innocent as soon as all the facts came out, you know, because a jury acquitted him. Come on. If he was convicted one side would cry miscarriage of justice, if he was acquitted the other would cry the same.