Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

I do know the specific rules for grand juries in Missouri, actually. I went to the trouble of studying them specifically because I didn't know what I was talking about in this thread. Granted, I would look like an idiot trying to prosecute in one, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of technicalities - that little gem about the assistant prosecutor giving the grand jury illegal advice, then 'correcting' herself under her breath while jackhammers pounded outside, for example, is something I missed entirely until this thread picked up on it - but I'm not a legal professional. Most of my experience of courtrooms comes from applying for bail and claiming she never told me her age.

That might be the case in Washington, but it does not appear to be the case in Missouri. In Missouri, as apparently in New York and New Jersey, as some posters have indicated, the prosecutions entire job at the grand jury is to push the prosecution case, excluding all factors that the defence might use to exonerate the accused. This case should have been a slam dunk at a Missouri grand jury; the cop admitted to firing his weapon, there were several eyewitnesses who claimed Brown was surrendering, the forensic evidence quite clearly showed that Brown had been shot by Officer Wilson, etc..

Now, I happen to think that Wilson is almost certainly innocent in this. His witness statement seems more than a little self-serving and arse-covering, but so do most of Brown's friends' statements. It seems more likely that Wilson lied in his initial reports, then told the truth - with a little less or extra emphasis here or there, of course - when he realised exactly how much trouble he was in, than the story about Brown being a "gentle giant" gunned down for no reason. I am not absolutely certain that Wilson is innocent, but that's unfortunately the way the cookie crumbles in a case where the accused is only the only reliable witness to the full event.

A trial would probably find Wilson not guilty. Unfortunately, this case is not going to trial because the prosecutor acted improperly in the grand jury, providing exculpatory evidence for Wilson, which is the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do before the grand jury. If he has exculpatory evidence, it is his job to either; not press charges, as the accused is obviously innocent, or; suppress it at the grand jury, but hand it over to the defence to use in a trial. The defence should not be represented at the grand jury. At this one, it was de facto represented by the prosecution.

For the sake of future arguments you may get into, you should assume that grand juries in Washington operate in accordance with the United States constitution. In other words by rules very similar to the rules in Missouri and not in any way as MobBoss is trying to suggest. In the world of intentional obtuseness, MobBoss long ago hit 180 and became a flat line.

 

[MobBoss]

I do know the specific rules for grand juries in Missouri, actually. I went to the trouble of studying them specifically because I didn't know what I was talking about in this thread. Granted, I would look like an idiot trying to prosecute in one, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of technicalities - that little gem about the assistant prosecutor giving the grand jury illegal advice, then 'correcting' herself under her breath while jackhammers pounded outside, for example, is something I missed entirely until this thread picked up on it - but I'm not a legal professional. Most of my experience of courtrooms comes from applying for bail and claiming she never told me her age.

That might be the case in Washington, but it does not appear to be the case in Missouri. In Missouri, as apparently in New York and New Jersey, as some posters have indicated, the prosecutions entire job at the grand jury is to push the prosecution case, excluding all factors that the defence might use to exonerate the accused. This case should have been a slam dunk at a Missouri grand jury; the cop admitted to firing his weapon, there were several eyewitnesses who claimed Brown was surrendering, the forensic evidence quite clearly showed that Brown had been shot by Officer Wilson, etc..

Now, I happen to think that Wilson is almost certainly innocent in this. His witness statement seems more than a little self-serving and arse-covering, but so do most of Brown's friends' statements. It seems more likely that Wilson lied in his initial reports, then told the truth - with a little less or extra emphasis here or there, of course - when he realised exactly how much trouble he was in, than the story about Brown being a "gentle giant" gunned down for no reason. I am not absolutely certain that Wilson is innocent, but that's unfortunately the way the cookie crumbles in a case where the accused is only the only reliable witness to the full event.

A trial would probably find Wilson not guilty. Unfortunately, this case is not going to trial because the prosecutor acted improperly in the grand jury, providing exculpatory evidence for Wilson, which is the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do before the grand jury. If he has exculpatory evidence, it is his job to either; not press charges, as the accused is obviously innocent, or; suppress it at the grand jury, but hand it over to the defence to use in a trial. The defence should not be represented at the grand jury. At this one, it was de facto represented by the prosecution.

Link your source then please for Missouri Grand Jury rules. I'd like to see what you read.

Also, as to the witnesses that said Brown was surrendering...I read in an article that several of them recanted when called before the Grand Jury and said they had lied about that. Did you know this?

And again, there is a difference in showing evidence that is in Wilsons favor, and saying a defense was made. Those are not quite the same thing.

For the sake of future arguments you may get into, you should assume that grand juries in Washington operate in accordance with the United States constitution. In other words by rules very similar to the rules in Missouri and not in any way as MobBoss is trying to suggest. In the world of intentional obtuseness, MobBoss long ago hit 180 and became a flat line.

A more correct comment would be that State Grand Juries operate under the Constitutions of those states using them. Not all states utilize Grand Juries you know.

 

[Zkribbler]

Wilson ran after him until Brown stopped, Brown then charged Wilson and he started shooting and back pedaling. His shots were fired in self defense...

Thanks Kaitz for the links

That is Wilson's story.

But, if true, this means that Wilson fired 10 times while Brown charged, closing the distance between them from 30 feet to 8 feet. 10 shots during a 22-foot charge? IMHO, the physics don't work out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is Wilson's story.

But, if true, this means that Wilson fired 10 times while Brown charged, closing the distance between them from 30 feet to 8 feet. 10 shots during a 22-foot charge? IMHO, the physics don't work out.

That would have been an interesting argument to resolve at trial. Had there been one.

 

[Zkribbler]

It is interesting that she 'accidentally' informed the grand jury that an inapplicable law applied to the situation...considering that the law was ruled unconstitutional before she even went to law school.

Wait just a minute. She cited to a statute which is currently on the books.

What I find astonishing is that this statute is still there three decades after the Garder ruling. How many juries have been given unlawful jury instructions? How many Missouri police officers have been trained in the wrong law? How many people have died? This is mind boggling.

 

[Berzerker]

Are people being deliberately obtuse? It is obvious that the prosecutor, through either incompetence or, more likely, corruption, threw the case

I said the prosecution may have thrown the case...and you quoted me.

by showing the grand jury things that it should not have seen.

Is it illegal to show a GJ the evidence?

The prosecution acted as a joint prosecution and defence before this grand jury, which is not what it is supposed to do. Therefore, the grand jury finding that Wilson didn't have a case to answer is based on a false premise.

Were they supposed to hide the locations of blood stains, shell casings and Wilson and Brown's locations? The only way a jury "might" decide against Wilson if the only evidence given to the jury was Dorian Johnson's story. Were they supposed to ignore everyone and everything else? How corrupt would that be?

Initially, no. Initially they just have no idea how their justice system actually is supposed to work. After a few repetitious explanations of what the purpose of a grand jury hearing is and how that clearly didn't happen...then they become intentionally obtuse rather than deal with having accidentally learned something that makes their previous position unbearably naive.

Was it illegal for the prosecution to provide the GJ evidence showing Wilson was attacked twice? You know, all that forensic evidence? Even if the eyewitnesses cancel each other out how is the GJ supposed to ignore the very evidence needed to allege a crime?

GJ - Why is this man accused?
P - He killed an innocent teenager
GJ - evidence?
P - Sorry, cant show ya cuz its exculpatory

And y'all think thats not corrupt?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wait just a minute. She cited to a statute which is currently on the books.

What I find astonishing is that this statute is still there three decades after the Garder ruling. How many juries have been given unlawful jury instructions? How many Missouri police officers have been trained in the wrong law? How many people have died? This is mind boggling.

You sure about that?

Headline: Prosecutorial Misconduct Leads To Overturning Thousands Of Convictions

Dateline, St Louis: In his efforts to avoid prosecution of Officer Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department, the county prosecutor has brought attention to a gross error which has been misused in his office for three decades. The appellate court, rather than face the flood of appeals individually, has overturned all convictions pending retrial. .... ..... ..... etc, etc.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

GJ - Why is this man accused?
P - He killed an innocent teenager
GJ - evidence?

P - Dead teenager. Empty gun.
GJ - Probable cause. Next.

 

[Berzerker]

That is Wilson's story.

But, if true, this means that Wilson fired 10 times while Brown charged, closing the distance between them from 30 feet to 8 feet. 10 shots during a 22-foot charge? IMHO, the physics don't work out.

It was more like ~40-50 ft, Wilson was back pedaling as Brown charged him... The shell casings and blood stains show how Wilson and Brown were heading back toward the SUV as the shots were fired.

Howdy Zkrib, looks like y'all weathered that typhoon okay?

 

[Berzerker]

P - Dead teenager. Empty gun.
GJ - Probable cause. Next.

GJ - teen wasn't innocent

Alan Dershowitz - "TV commentators, particularly on CNN, got it wrong," according to Dershowitz. "They were acting as if the probable cause required in a case like this is like the probable cause required to stop, search, or arrest somebody. That's just not the way it works.

"You need to have a conviction that's based on the evidence a jury would probably convict, and that kind of probable cause was lacking in this case. The media did a terrible job of whooping up a frenzy by misinforming the public about how indictments generally work," Dershowitz said.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

GJ - teen wasn't innocent

Alan Dershowitz - "TV commentators, particularly on CNN, got it wrong," according to Dershowitz. "They were acting as if the probable cause required in a case like this is like the probable cause required to stop, search, or arrest somebody. That's just not the way it works.

"You need to have a conviction that's based on the evidence a jury would probably convict, and that kind of probable cause was lacking in this case. The media did a terrible job of whooping up a frenzy by misinforming the public about how indictments generally work," Dershowitz said.

Based on the part bolded, either you (or your source) butchered the quote, or old Alan is senile...because that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Berzerker]

what about it confuses you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

what about it confuses you?

What about it makes sense to you?

"You need to have a conviction"...well, until we have a trial we ain't gonna. Now what?

 

[Zkribbler]

It was more like ~40-50 ft, Wilson was back pedaling as Brown charged him... The shell casings and blood stains show how Wilson and Brown were heading back toward the SUV as the shots were fired.

If it were 50 feet, that'd mean that Wilson was backpeddling as fast as Brown was running forward.

[I sure wish I could find the police sketches somewhere online. ]

Howdy Zkrib, looks like y'all weathered that typhoon okay?

We did okay considering that we were taken unaware. When we went to bed, it was a category 1 tropical storm [i.e. wind, rain, schools closed]. At 9 p.m., it was upgraded to a category 3, typhoon. Both Cavlancer and I had windows opened, which got closed in a hurry. By midnight, things were really nasty; by dawn, the storm was gone. I lost a cute little garden gate and had some Xmas decorations torn down. Cavlancer lost his sea gate, a glass vase, and a full-length mirror. So basically, nottin'.

Our power and internet were out for awhile, which is why I'm playing catch up on this issue.

9 people were killed by the sea surge in Jagna, the next town over. All the little fishing boats along our coast were damaged or destroyed. There was a huge ocean-going ore freighter tied up, ready to receive its load of limestone. It broke loose, smashed into the pier, and settled on the bottom, closing down the quarry. That's 1,000 people out of work. Very sad.

 

[Old Hippy]

GJ - teen wasn't innocent

.

but thats just wild speculation and hear say, because it has never been put to the test, it could have been, as part of the defense for the officer in a trail

 

[classical_hero]

P - Dead teenager. Empty gun.
GJ - Probable cause. Next.

So all you need to show is a dead teenager? You don't have to show the circumstances leading to it?

 

[Zkribbler]

You sure about that?

Headline: Prosecutorial Misconduct Leads To Overturning Thousands Of Convictions

That's backwards. The Missouri statute purports to give police the authority to shoot fleeing felons. The 1986 Garner case says the police can only shoot a fleeing felon if he poses an imminent threat to the officer or the community. Stated another way, the Missouri statute purports to grant an immunity which does not exist.

There are no "thousands of convictions" to overturn.

 

[bhsup]

And it should be obvious that anyone who would attack a cop in his car and try to get his gun to kill the cop for no (legitimate) reason is an imminent threat to the community.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So all you need to show is a dead teenager? You don't have to show the circumstances leading to it?

From The handbook for Federal Grand Jurors. Although state rules may vary, if they vary a whole lot they become unconstitutional so this should be adequate.

It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused, persuades it that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused was the person who committed it. Remember that the grand jury is not responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial.

Or by the prosecutor on behalf of the accused.

Dead teenager. Has a crime been committed? Maybe. He clearly is dead by gunshot, not natural causes. Is shooting people generally a crime? Well, usually. So is there probable cause to believe that a crime was committed? Lots of people will think so. Lots of jurors as well. A body full of bullet holes is generally enough to get a finding of probable cause that some sort of crime was committed. You would have to really work to convince people that there probably wasn't. Doing that work is not the prosecutor's job.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's backwards. The Missouri statute purports to give police the authority to shoot fleeing felons. The 1986 Garner case says the police can only shoot a fleeing felon if he poses an imminent threat to the officer or the community. Stated another way, the Missouri statute purports to grant an immunity which does not exist.

There are no "thousands of convictions" to overturn.

Ah well, it was a fun thought.