Ferguson

[Berzerker]

do you mean the standard for prosecutors is to win an indictment and lose the trial?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dershowitz said the prosecutor needs to believe they have enough of a case to both indict and convict, thats the standard for probable cause prosecutors go by.

Sure. In deciding to seek an indictment. If they don't think they can win they keep working to improve their case until they can.

By hiding the evidence?

By presenting the evidence to demonstrate probable cause and reminding the grand jury that determination of guilt is not their concern. The way prosecutors handle every other case they bring to grand juries everywhere.

The mob was gonna be mad at an acquittal, the prosecution spared us that eventuality - or a wrongful conviction.

By infuriating them when he deliberately botched his handling of the case at the preliminary stage. You wanna thank him for that?

 

[James Stuart]

do you mean the standard for prosecutors is to win an indictment and lose the trial?

An indictment is separate from the trial, and the prosecutor does not have to prove to the grand jury that they can win a trial, merely that there is enough evidence to hod one. For what it's worth, as I've written multiple times in this thread, I believe Wilson should have been taken to trial, where he would have won, handily.

 

[MobBoss]

As I have said multiple times, it is the interpretation of the code - the exact same sections you quoted, as a matter of fact - that determine that what the prosecution did was improper. Legal, mind you, but improper. I don't believe I have ever actually argued that the prosecution acted illegally - at least not in regards to this case, though throwing multiple cases against police officers may be another issue - merely that it was unethical. But, by all means, continue to claim you know better than Columbia Law School, which made the exact same argument as I did, and far more eloquently.

Making an appeal to authority in naming Columbia is simply logical fallacy for the simple reason is there will be legal opinion on this from such institutions/professors/professional from both sides on this argument. That is just the nature of these things.

The only real opinion that would actually matter would be a published opinion from a court making a ruling on a similar subject. Barring that, we'll just have to deal with the plain language of the Missouri law before us.

I'll give you a hint: it's the word cognizable. I had not come across this word before I read the code, so I looked it up. It means - and I'm sure that as a paralegal you know this better than I do, and that my dumbed-down definition pales in comparison to legal terminology - that anything viable to that body's jurisdiction should be considered. I do not consider that conflicting testimony that makes it harder for a prosecutor to get an indictment to be cognizable to a sitting of the grand jury.

Actually, cognizable should mean the opposite as you interpret it. A Grand Jury has pretty broad power to see evidence it deems appropriate to see for the case at hand (which is what cognizable means here, i.e. within its jurisdiction) and simply is not limited in scope to see only evidence for the prosecution. In essence, cognizable actually means all evidence relevant to the case before the Grand Jury - and that would include evidence useful for the defense as well as the prosecution.

[

At this point I expect you'll simply claim to have won the argument and move on, but we both know that is not the case.

I do think your misreading the code if you think it proves your argument.

But you can't get blood from a stone, and I cannot alter the opinion of someone who is dishonest with themselves, or unwilling to engage in a debate rationally. That goes for some of the people on the other side of this argument as well. Calm the hell down.

Look, all I asked for was a cite supporting your premise. If you think the one I provided supports your premise (and I don't see how it does since it contains no language to that effect at all) I don't know what else to tell you.

My reading, across multiple US states, not just Missouri, is that this is, in fact, a much higher standard than usual for a prosecutor.

Other states shouldn't matter. Different jurisdictions with possibly different legal rules.

An indictment is separate from the trial, and the prosecutor does not have to prove to the grand jury that they can win a trial, merely that there is enough evidence to hod one. For what it's worth, as I've written multiple times in this thread, I believe Wilson should have been taken to trial, where he would have won, handily.

Sorry, but prosecutors that take cases to trial knowing they will lose them don't stay prosecutors for long. That's not the nature of the job. Prosecutors NCF (no charges filed) cases all the time because in prelims they figure out they have no chance at getting a conviction, especially before a jury.

Even knowing what you do, if you think this case would have been won 'handily' that just proves all the more that the case shouldn't go to trial at all, and also WHY the Grand Jury didn't indict Wilson. It is simply not ethical, nor moral to take a case to trial fully knowing you have no chance to win it.

 

[Berzerker]

Sure. In deciding to seek an indictment. If they don't think they can win they keep working to improve their case until they can.

So you agree with Dershowitz now?

By presenting the evidence to demonstrate probable cause and reminding the grand jury that determination of guilt is not their concern.

By hiding evidence that negates probable cause? What evidence demonstrates Dershowitz' prosecutorial standard of probable cause, ie evidence so strong an indictment is a sure thing and it'll probably get a conviction at trial?

Your argument is the GJ saw too much exculpatory evidence, a trial jury would see that evidence. A prosecutor knows that, so why would they with hold such evidence from a GJ and why is it ethical? They're lying about having probable cause.

By infuriating them when he deliberately botched his handling of the case at the preliminary stage. You wanna thank him for that?

They're gonna be mad anyway unless they get their conviction. And that means to satisfy them an innocent man must go to jail. So to hell with them. I'd thank him for sparing the cop the ordeal of a trial, but he never should have let it get that far. And I'd thank him for not doing what I guess every other prosecutor does with GJs and lie to them because thats the ethical way of doing things.

An indictment is separate from the trial, and the prosecutor does not have to prove to the grand jury that they can win a trial, merely that there is enough evidence to hod one.

But the prosecutor will likely lose at trial if the indictment was won by hiding evidence showing the accused is innocent, ie evidence negating both probable cause and a guilty verdict. So why is it ethical for a prosecutor to lie to the GJ?

For what it's worth, as I've written multiple times in this thread, I believe Wilson should have been taken to trial, where he would have won, handily.

Based on what? Evidence that would convince a GJ to endorse a trial? Thats what Dershowitz was talking about, prosecutors aint supposed to seek indictments if they cant back it up during the trial. So hiding evidence is unethical, not showing it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you can't get your head around the idea that 'probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and if it has that this is the person responsible' and 'guilty of this crime' are two entirely different things that really isn't my problem.

At a hearing to determine the former you don't have to 'hide' evidence relating to the latter...you just don't introduce it because it is frankly not relevant to what is being decided.

In this case the grand jury failed to make a proper decision on probable cause specifically because the prosecutor muddied the waters with evidence that related to a question they are supposed to be specifically instructed is not their problem to answer; the question of guilt.

You are so heavily wrapped in some flavor of 'thank goodness the cop that shot the bad black man isn't going to get in trouble for it' that you either can't or won't see that the justice system got twisted to produce your desired result. Which isn't to say that the system would or would not have produced that result anyway...but the twisting of the system endangers all of us.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I want to send money to help the peaceful demonstrations and possibly some useful stuff also. Could you please give me a cue whom I should address or what site to look on the matter?

I'm not sure if this is legitimate, but it might be. https://secure.piryx.com/donate/mS25KFCe/MORE/mikebrown

Thanks!

 

[tetley]

For whatever reason, the prosecutor clearly didn't have the heart to prosecute the case. Where does he get all his evidence to prosecute his other cases? If he doesn't have the support of the police, his job is in trouble. And in his own mind he can justify it by saying it will only make crime worse. He's the one who would prosecute the trial. Do you hold a kangaroo court at trial, or the grand jury hearing?

We have a clear systemic failure. Yet no system can overcome people bound and determined enough to be dishonest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For whatever reason, the prosecutor clearly didn't have the heart to prosecute the case. Where does he get all his evidence to prosecute his other cases? If he doesn't have the support of the police, his job is in trouble. And in his own mind he can justify it by saying it will only make crime worse. He's the one who would prosecute the trial. Do you hold a kangaroo court at trial, or the grand jury hearing?

We have a clear systemic failure. Yet no system can overcome people bound and determined enough to be dishonest.

That goes to the core of the problem. The police are absolutely open with their 'prosecute a cop, good or bad, and we can and will screw you over'. Some StLouis Rams players made a gesture of support for the protests and the union representing the StLouis cops instantly demanded that the NFL punish them or they would organize a boycott.

The police provide a career path that is very attractive to bullies. Put a bunch of bullies together and the next thing you know they are demanding to be above the law...and bullying their way towards having their demands met. Add in the fact that since they are involved in the justice system on a daily basis so they are likely more adept at using (and abusing) it and you have a massive societal problem on your hands.

 

[classical_hero]

Sorry, but prosecutors that take cases to trial knowing they will lose them don't stay prosecutors for long. That's not the nature of the job. Prosecutors NCF (no charges filed) cases all the time because in prelims they figure out they have no chance at getting a conviction, especially before a jury.

Even knowing what you do, if you think this case would have been won 'handily' that just proves all the more that the case shouldn't go to trial at all, and also WHY the Grand Jury didn't indict Wilson. It is simply not ethical, nor moral to take a case to trial fully knowing you have no chance to win it.

I've been saying that for some time now, but apparently it seems this case should have gone to trial to satisfy the mob. Sham justice in America has to stoop so low, but that seems what so many people are arguing.

 

[bhsup]

I've been saying that for some time now, but apparently it seems this case should have gone to trial to satisfy the mob. Sham justice in America has to stoop so low, but that seems what so many people are arguing.

 

[warpus]

Shouldn't it have gone to trial though, and not grand jury? Isn't that exactly what should have happened?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Shouldn't it have gone to trial though, and not grand jury? Isn't that exactly what should have happened?

It's an either or. If the prosecutor really didn't see a case he would normally just say 'no case'. If he bowed to public pressure and pretended to have a case (probably a good move, in honesty) and took it to the grand jury, he needed to maintain the pretense by properly presenting what he had. He (or any year one law student) could have gone to the grand jury and gotten a finding of probable cause. Winning at trial would be an entirely different task.

By starting out on the public appeasement path and then blatantly blowing the case, he made things worse than he would have by just not starting on that path at all. If you are at work and your boss is starting to think 'hey, this guy seems to be avoiding this task that is part of his job', so the boss specifically directs you 'go do this'...and you go and blatantly screw it up because you didn't want to do it in the first place, how do you expect your boss to react?

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that's how scales work. The idea is that counterfeit gold weighs less than authentic gold, so if the "gold" rises, you know it's illegitimate.

The cartoon is in effect saying that Wilson's case is so clearly fraudulent that you'd have to be blind not to see it.

 

[Borachio]

Or maybe the scales of justice work like witches' ducking stools.

If you sink and drown you're plainly innocent, but if you float you're guilty.

No.. wait... that's what you're saying too. I think.

But isn't it strange that the statue of Lady Justice at the Old Bailey isn't blindfolded?

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't think that's how scales work. The idea is that counterfeit gold weighs less than authentic gold, so if the "gold" rises, you know it's illegitimate.

The cartoon is in effect saying that Wilson's case is so clearly fraudulent that you'd have to be blind not to see it.

The point is that the media impact outweighs justice.

J

 

[sophie]

Suitably modified.

J

Except the modification makes no sense given the explanation Traitorfish provided about how scales work and the purpose for which they were historically used.

 

[onejayhawk]

Or maybe the scales of justice work like witches' ducking stools.

If you sink and drown you're plainly innocent, but if you float you're guilty.

No.. wait... that's what you're saying too. I think.

But isn't it strange that the statue of Lady Justice at the Old Bailey isn't blindfolded?

There are Lady Justices that have a sword and a Bible. Different times.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are Lady Justices that have a sword and a Bible. Different times.

J

Considering that "Lady Justice" is actually a goddess from Greek mythology and sticking her with a bible is a disservice to both her and the bible I'd say better times.

 

[onejayhawk]

Considering that "Lady Justice" is actually a goddess from Greek mythology and sticking her with a bible is a disservice to both her and the bible I'd say better times.

It's going on today, just using a Koran.

J