Grand Jury announcement today!

[Mackeyser]

Did you read the self-defense explanation provided by a 30 year self-defense attorney? What did you think?

I thought it was terrible. Childish, even. I haven't spent one day in law school and I could prove he was wrong. PROVE. And that's saying something.

As an attorney, he should know not to make absolute statements like he did. NO Right under the Constitution is absolute. None. So the right of self-defense is not absolute, also.

The examples were all too easy to enumerate.

I understand what he was trying to say... that self-defense creates additional burdens for the Grand Jury.

However, that does NOT mean that the DA has to bring exculpatory evidence TO the Grand Jury.

Heck, all the DA has to do is bring ENOUGH...

It is then the Defense's job to discover and present exculpatory evidence to the empaneled trial jury. Enough to obtain a not-guilty verdict(s).

I wish I had money for DVD ripping software. I'd rip that scene from My Cousin Vinny about the arraignment. That's this whole discussion, I swear...

I'm not saying Officer Wilson was guilty. I'm saying he should have been indicted. That's it. Further, I'll go out on a limb and say for reasons that subjectively I think are good and bad, there's very little chance he would have been found guilty of anything and he'd very likely been found Not Guilty on all counts.

I dunno why saying that I believe in the integrity of the process is such a bad thing.

The integrity of the legal process IS the thing, quite honestly.

 

[Boffo97]

Well, sometimes that happens. It. Just. Does.

I absolutely agree that white-on-black violence due to racism does happen. I'd be a fool not to.

What I'm saying though is that some people want every incident where something happens between differing races to be more of this. And to those people, nothing will ever satisfactorily prove to them that it's not.

The rest, including the Scalia stuff, I don't have the legal expertise to counter, but if there was truth to the grand jury/DA acting inappropriately, it'd be all over the place.

I am completely satisfied that there simply wasn't any evidence to justify pursuing charges.

EDIT: I did find this link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...ferguson-grand-jury-to-consider-self-defense/

To sum up, their argument seems to be:

1. The precedent of the Williams case only establishes that prosecutors are not REQUIRED to present exculpatory evidence. Since that never came into question, Williams is irrelevant to this case.

2. To expect that the grand jury not hear evidence of the possibility of self defense is absurd since if Brown's death was in self defense then there is no crime to indict for. And this would result in each and every case of self defense, no matter how obvious, to go to trial.

 

[Mackeyser]

I didn't mean anything by the left wing sites, that's just where I see the same references and arguments you are using. I just intended to point out that those sites are not reliable.

The point that this Lawyer is making is that for a grand jury to consider an indictment in a case where self-defense is the claim, exculpatory evidence would be required. Otherwise, there's nothing for the grand jury to do. Shooting an unarmed person is a crime and Wilson admitted he did it.

I don't see any answer to his point. It is an exception to the general workings, he knows about it as a self-defense lawyer, and the logic is undeniable.

The fact that self-defense is a complete defense and would remove the criminality of the act, removing any reason for an indictment, exculpatory evidence would have to be presented. Of course the details would matter in deciding if it were self-defense, and the nuances of the law would need to be explained, which is why they would have to be presented.

http://legalinsurrection.com/author/law-of-self-defense/

Well thank you for that. I would disagree that "those sites" are not reliable. I've seen good and bad writing all over and take each piece individually. It's why I say that each piece should be judged on its own merits and not on the "authority" of the site it comes from or the author. Heck, George Will wrote about the worst piece of crap for Thanksgiving I've ever read recently. Worst stream of lack of consciousness garbage. And I normally like George Will.

Anyway, I already responded to that piece. It's awful. I see it as poorly worded at the very least. A lawyer must choose his words carefully and if the author cannot remove absolute words from his vocabulary when he's passionate, then his legal writings will be equally as bad if not worse.

So, again, no self-defense is NOT a "complete" defense. There's no such thing. That would imply an absolute right and there is no such thing. It does not exist. You do not have an absolute right to your body (you cannot commit suicide in most jurisdictions), nor your property (even without insurance, in many jurisdictions you cannot burn down your own house), nor your expressions (yes, it's true, you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless it's true. Although these days, people would think it's gun fire, not "the roof is on...")

But this last part really caught my eye:

Of course the details would matter in deciding if it were self-defense, and the nuances of the law would need to be explained, which is why they would have to be presented.

YES!!!! Exactly!!! And the DA McCulloch did NOT do this! That's what I'm trying to say! He acknowledged this. He did NOT explain WHY the evidence should apply to the law or how the law should apply to the evidence. He did NOT! THAT is the scandal of it. Thousands of times a day in cities all across this nation, District Attorneys and Attorneys General stand in front of Grand Juries and present their cases. They present the charges and then the evidence necessary to return an indictment for those charges unless the state doesn't require an indictment or the lesser charge allows for a lesser instrument. They then EXPLAIN how the law applies. This part was left out of this particular Grand Jury process and was crucial.

I feel bad for the Grand Jury. They were left with purposefully conflicting testimony, the uncontested testimony of the shooter, Officer Wilson, which is highly unusual, really shoddy forensics work, no video and some audio. No one's account matched the scientific evidence fully, including Officer Wilson's. And the ADAs presenting the case provided no guidance on the law, only the evidence. In such an environment, I'm completely not surprised they returned No True bills.

My whole point in this is that McCulloch (not any subordinate) should have presented the case to the Grand Jury. This ain't NY or LA or Chicago. There wasn't anything on his plate more important than this. Further, he had a duty once he decided to involve the Grand Jury to do it properly including explaining how the law applies to the evidence and the charges being brought.

Lastly, PLENTY of self-defense cases go to trial. Happens all the time. If that defense attorney were correct, then self-defense cases wouldn't even GET there because Grand Juries couldn't indict people claiming self-defense. Except... it happens... ALL the time.

 

[Mackeyser]

I absolutely agree that white-on-black violence due to racism does happen. I'd be a fool not to.

What I'm saying though is that some people want every incident where something happens between differing races to be more of this. And to those people, nothing will ever satisfactorily prove to them that it's not.

The rest, including the Scalia stuff, I don't have the legal expertise to counter, but if there was truth to the grand jury/DA acting inappropriately, it'd be all over the place.

I am completely satisfied that there simply wasn't any evidence to justify pursuing charges.

EDIT: I did find this link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...ferguson-grand-jury-to-consider-self-defense/

To sum up, their argument seems to be:

1. The precedent of the Williams case only establishes that prosecutors are not REQUIRED to present exculpatory evidence. Since that never came into question, Williams is irrelevant to this case.

2. To expect that the grand jury not hear evidence of the possibility of self defense is absurd since if Brown's death was in self defense then there is no crime to indict for. And this would result in each and every case of self defense, no matter how obvious, to go to trial.

Yeah I saw the legal insurrection thing @RamzFanz posted. I would not want that guy defending me.

1) Williams is relevant because the exculpatory evidence was furnished for Officer Wilson's benefit to exonerate him. Not only is that not required, it's the exact opposite of the function of the DA in front of the Grand Jury. His role is prosecutorial. It's adversarial. The judge is there for Justice with a big J. The DA is in front of the Grand Jury to get an indictment. You don't go in front of them unless you want one. It's like standing at a urinal and expecting a pizza. Once in a blue moon, that might happen, but when you deliberately walk up to a urinal and unzip, it's for a reason: you gotta pee. When as a DA you convene a Grand Jury, it's for a reason: you want an indictment. Anything else is as crazy as expecting a pizza at a urinal.

2) They grand jury may or may NOT hear evidence of self-defense. Now, it only makes sense for a prosecutor to include some of that evidence because if the evidence can't even get him an indictment, he surely can't get the verdict he wants. However, and this is important, the DA must explain the limits of self-defense, the limits of an officer's powers (in other words, why this wasn't within his authority as an officer) and why the evidence STILL points to an indictment. If that Legal Insurrection article were remotely worth anything, no one would go on trial for self-defense. They'd never even be INDICTED. But, as we know with George Zimmerman's trial, self-defense most certainly didn't prevent him from being indicted.

So, here's the deal. Either... they had the evidence, which it's pretty clear they did. 'Cuz we can see it now. At least enough for an indictment. Any DA that wanted to indict him could have and if the DoJ gets involved you'll all see that. You really can pretty much indict a ham sandwich. It's almost impossible NOT to be indicted, actually. Defense lawyers will tell you that it doesn't really mean much. It's just a step in the process. But it's an important step. Or... they really didn't know how or want to make a case on Officer Wilson. In which case, they should have chosen a different method to diffuse the political situation.

The legal system already mistreats too many as it is. The last thing we need are more high profile examples of unequal justice and unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Had everyone just had faith in the system, the trial would have happened and almost certainly, Officer Wilson would have been found Not Guilty. Instead, we're left with "the fix is in" and the media and social media vying to out-irresponsible one another...

I'd rather advocate for the process and integrity. And let the chips fall where they may.

 

[RamzFanz]

Well thank you for that. I would disagree that "those sites" are not reliable. I've seen good and bad writing all over and take each piece individually. It's why I say that each piece should be judged on its own merits and not on the "authority" of the site it comes from or the author. Heck, George Will wrote about the worst piece of crap for Thanksgiving I've ever read recently. Worst stream of lack of consciousness garbage. And I normally like George Will.

Anyway, I already responded to that piece. It's awful. I see it as poorly worded at the very least. A lawyer must choose his words carefully and if the author cannot remove absolute words from his vocabulary when he's passionate, then his legal writings will be equally as bad if not worse.

So, again, no self-defense is NOT a "complete" defense. There's no such thing. That would imply an absolute right and there is no such thing. It does not exist. You do not have an absolute right to your body (you cannot commit suicide in most jurisdictions), nor your property (even without insurance, in many jurisdictions you cannot burn down your own house), nor your expressions (yes, it's true, you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless it's true. Although these days, people would think it's gun fire, not "the roof is on...")

But this last part really caught my eye:


YES!!!! Exactly!!! And the DA McCulloch did NOT do this! That's what I'm trying to say! He acknowledged this. He did NOT explain WHY the evidence should apply to the law or how the law should apply to the evidence. He did NOT! THAT is the scandal of it. Thousands of times a day in cities all across this nation, District Attorneys and Attorneys General stand in front of Grand Juries and present their cases. They present the charges and then the evidence necessary to return an indictment for those charges unless the state doesn't require an indictment or the lesser charge allows for a lesser instrument. They then EXPLAIN how the law applies. This part was left out of this particular Grand Jury process and was crucial.

I feel bad for the Grand Jury. They were left with purposefully conflicting testimony, the uncontested testimony of the shooter, Officer Wilson, which is highly unusual, really shoddy forensics work, no video and some audio. No one's account matched the scientific evidence fully, including Officer Wilson's. And the ADAs presenting the case provided no guidance on the law, only the evidence. In such an environment, I'm completely not surprised they returned No True bills.

My whole point in this is that McCulloch (not any subordinate) should have presented the case to the Grand Jury. This ain't NY or LA or Chicago. There wasn't anything on his plate more important than this. Further, he had a duty once he decided to involve the Grand Jury to do it properly including explaining how the law applies to the evidence and the charges being brought.

Lastly, PLENTY of self-defense cases go to trial. Happens all the time. If that defense attorney were correct, then self-defense cases wouldn't even GET there because Grand Juries couldn't indict people claiming self-defense. Except... it happens... ALL the time.

Those sites are good sites to learn what is being said, but not what is true. Scalia never said the grand jury couldn't or shouldn't consider exculpatory evidence or that it couldn't or shouldn't be presented, just that it can't be required. You'll not see that on any of those sites nor the other extreme sites of all viewpoints.

You seem to be misinterpreting complete defense. IF self-defense, as allowed by the relevant laws in that jurisdiction is evident, then there is no crime. Therefore the grand jury must determine if there was self-defense in order to determine if a crime was committed. You can't indict without a crime. To say that that is an absolute is not in line with what he is saying. If self-defense isn't allowed, than it wouldn't be presented.

I think you're dancing around the point he made.

Here's an indictment of Wilson without exculpatory evidence and the prosecutor only trying to get an indictment:

Prosecutor: Good morning. We have before us a possibility of murder one or a lesser crime. A man exited his vehicle, drew a gun, and killed an unarmed man who may or may not have been fleeing. It is a crime to kill another person and the person who did it admitted to doing it.

Jury: Indict.

If there is no self-defense evidence, then all you need is 1) is it a crime. 2) Who did it. Yes, it's a crime to kill someone and Wilson did it.

Your point about self-defense going to trial doesn't have any support. Do they go to the grand jury first? Do they consider the exculpatory evidence? It's a huge assumption that all self-defense trials went through a grand jury and no exculpatory evidence was presented.

Most of your argument is just not relevant. The prosecutors did indeed explain the duties of the grand jury and the charges and answered many questions about what was required throughout the process. I'm not seeing any indication that you've actually read any of the transcripts yourself. You make the same claims I see everywhere and don't support them.

 

[RamzFanz]

Yeah I saw the legal insurrection thing @RamzFanz posted. I would not want that guy defending me.

1) Williams is relevant because the exculpatory evidence was furnished for Officer Wilson's benefit to exonerate him. Not only is that not required, it's the exact opposite of the function of the DA in front of the Grand Jury. His role is prosecutorial. It's adversarial. The judge is there for Justice with a big J. The DA is in front of the Grand Jury to get an indictment. You don't go in front of them unless you want one. It's like standing at a urinal and expecting a pizza. Once in a blue moon, that might happen, but when you deliberately walk up to a urinal and unzip, it's for a reason: you gotta pee. When as a DA you convene a Grand Jury, it's for a reason: you want an indictment. Anything else is as crazy as expecting a pizza at a urinal.

2) They grand jury may or may NOT hear evidence of self-defense. Now, it only makes sense for a prosecutor to include some of that evidence because if the evidence can't even get him an indictment, he surely can't get the verdict he wants. However, and this is important, the DA must explain the limits of self-defense, the limits of an officer's powers (in other words, why this wasn't within his authority as an officer) and why the evidence STILL points to an indictment. If that Legal Insurrection article were remotely worth anything, no one would go on trial for self-defense. They'd never even be INDICTED. But, as we know with George Zimmerman's trial, self-defense most certainly didn't prevent him from being indicted.

So, here's the deal. Either... they had the evidence, which it's pretty clear they did. 'Cuz we can see it now. At least enough for an indictment. Any DA that wanted to indict him could have and if the DoJ gets involved you'll all see that. You really can pretty much indict a ham sandwich. It's almost impossible NOT to be indicted, actually. Defense lawyers will tell you that it doesn't really mean much. It's just a step in the process. But it's an important step. Or... they really didn't know how or want to make a case on Officer Wilson. In which case, they should have chosen a different method to diffuse the political situation.

The legal system already mistreats too many as it is. The last thing we need are more high profile examples of unequal justice and unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Had everyone just had faith in the system, the trial would have happened and almost certainly, Officer Wilson would have been found Not Guilty. Instead, we're left with "the fix is in" and the media and social media vying to out-irresponsible one another...

I'd rather advocate for the process and integrity. And let the chips fall where they may.

Dude, you've gone completely off the rails. George Zimmerman? The police said they had no case. The prosecuting attorney said they had no case. The PUBLIC and the same players that came here, influenced the state to get someone in there who said they DID have a case just to blow millions and lose. Oh yeah, it DIDN'T go to a grand jury. It COULDN'T. If it had, there would not have been an indictment.

That is what you want? A big trial and witch hunt when everyone reasonable is saying there's no case?!

The DOJ walked away from this dead issue a long time ago, they just haven't announced it. There is absolutely no way they take this case. There is NO evidence of a crime! What can they prosecute him for? Firing a hand gun in city limits?!

 

[Mackeyser]

Explaining the duties of the Grand Jury (which wouldn't have happened in this case as this was a standing Grand Jury, not one specially convened for this matter) and explaining the charges is NOT what I was talking about.

This Grand Jury was presented evidence for three months. Per the DA McCulloch, they gave the evidence to the Grand Jury and allowed them to come to their own conclusion.

Well, that's just great. Except, he knows full damn well that's not how it's done and it's not how HIS department does it every day.

Using your template:

Prosecutor: Good morning. We have before us a possibility of murder one, manslaughter one, manslaughter two or aggravated assault. A police officer (that wouldn't be excluded) exited his vehicle, drew a gun, and killed an unarmed man who may or may not have been fleeing. It is a crime to kill another person and the Officer who did it admitted to doing it. The Officer sustained minor facial injuries in the altercation with the deceased. The law in Missouri allows a police officer to.... What it doesn't allow is.... The evidence will show support for these charges. Let's begin with the evidence.

Jury: Indict.

Big difference. They Grand Jury would know about the fact that the person was an officer, of course. I've never presented to a Grand Jury, obviously, so I don't know if presenting uncertainty like that is common. It's generally pretty UNcommon at trial. But what the DA has gone to great pains to talk about at length is that they did NOT influence the jury... which is the whole damned point of the Grand Jury. It's NOT supposed to be a neutral process. It's a one-sided, prosecutorial affair. It's absolutely NOT about guilt or innocence... just... is there enough prima facie evidence to support the charges so that the jurisdiction can be allowed to levy a charge against the person(s) or entity.

Again... George Zimmerman. Self-Defense in Florida with Stand Your Ground laws. He was indicted. And he was indicted when most everyone knew full well with the Stand Your Ground laws that it would be almost impossible to convict him even as he instigated. So, yes, if you have any question, in Florida, you can walk up to someone, START a fight, THEN feel threatened and shoot them dead. Plus, you can tack on that the police had specifically instructed him NOT to interact with Trayvon Martin. Did the Grand Jury hear all of this? Almost certainly NOT. They heard enough to indict, not convict, because that was their role.

Now, if Self-defense doesn't allow for that to happen...how'd he GET indicted? How do all those who stand trial claiming self-defense actually GET to trial?

Well, because self-defense isn't a be all and end all, it simply raises the bar AT TRIAL. And defense lawyers are trying to raise bar for the Grand Jury.

It's actually a conservative notion which Justice Scalia puts forth to keep the Grand Jury prosecutorial. McCulloch violates that by using it as a defense tool for Officer Wilson.

Now. Does it violate any laws in Missouri? I don't know. I doubt that.

Does it violate any legal canon? Again, I doubt that, although I can't imagine that violating the purpose of the Grand Jury is ethical.

Does it establish a passive/aggressive precedent for any DA to misuse the Grand Jury and present the No True bills to the public as "verdicts"? Absolutely. It's what's happened here and I fully expect it to happen more and more as DAs of all political stripes run for cover and want to shield themselves from unpopular outcomes of cases. They can blame any outcome on a Grand Jury that by law must remain secret. It's perfect cover for any politician, which every DA ultimately is.

But a No True bill isn't a verdict. It doesn't proclaim anyone's guilt or innocence. They don't exonerate anyone. And because the Grand Jury is secret, we can't poll them to know if they were unified or if the Grand Jury was split or even viewed the evidence the same or with the same weight. We are not allowed to know.

The secrecy of the Grand Jury is a good thing and has a good purpose. However, the more the Grand Jury is misused, the more that secrecy will become a bad thing and Grand Juries will come under attack when really, those who misuse them should be, instead.

 

[Mackeyser]

Dude, you've gone completely off the rails. George Zimmerman? The police said they had no case. The prosecuting attorney said they had no case. The PUBLIC and the same players that came here, influenced the state to get someone in there who said they DID have a case just to blow millions and lose. Oh yeah, it DIDN'T go to a grand jury. It COULDN'T. If it had, there would not have been an indictment.

That is what you want? A big trial and witch hunt when everyone reasonable is saying there's no case?!

The DOJ walked away from this dead issue a long time ago, they just haven't announced it. There is absolutely no way they take this case. There is NO evidence of a crime! What can they prosecute him for? Firing a hand gun in city limits?!

You're right. I misread something quickly going back on Zimmerman and his 2nd degree murder charge and I think it was improperly worded. It's what I get for going too fast. No, the prosecutor used her discretion in FL to charge him directly. And yes, for the very reasons I cited in THIS case, most of the prosecutors refused to prosecute. Difference is, they outright refused. DA McCulloch COULD have done that. Some argue he should have done that. But he didn't. He convened the Grand Jury. By doing that, he potentially opened a really big and bad can of worms.

As for what I want?

I'll be clear. I don't care one lick about expediency. I care about the process being true and having integrity.

If that costs a nickel or a million dollars, I don't care.

As for "everyone reasonable", I'm not taking sides on these cases, so quit it. Quit arguing with me as if I think Officer Wilson is GUILTY.

I'm NOT saying that. YOU keep saying he's INNOCENT. I keep saying you can't say that because the process was subverted. I'm saying we can't KNOW. He never had an adversarial DA confront his testimony which WAS inconsistent and didn't match the DNA. No one's did. That matters. The DA functioned as his defense attorney. So who really dug into the Officer's testimony? If folks want to proclaim him INNOCENT, who really cross examined him and banged out all of the inconsistencies in his story? Oh, that's right... no one. Because the ADA gave him a hand job in front of the Grand Jury. And it makes me mad because neither you, nor I, nor anyone on this forum would be accorded that leniency. Either have the conviction to do your job as the DA (like the JAG lawyers who stood up to both Presidents Bush and Obama over Gitmo) or if you're going to convene the Grand Jury, DO IT. Get the indictment and let a jury decide. But do NOT subvert justice by hamstringing the Grand Jury process. That's just wrong.

You're saying the Grand Jury pronounced him INNOCENT, that there was NO evidence to support an indictment. I'm saying the Grand Jury returned No True bills which only means that under their given conditions, there either was not enough evidence or not enough connection of the evidence to the charges to return an indictment. I've articulated umpteen times WHY that was and how the Grand Jury simply cannot in any way pronounce anyone innocent. Ever. And because the Grand Jury deliberations are secret, we can NEVER know what you are trying to say. They may have been mixed or unified on the evidence, but not on the charges. We can't know and will never know. A No True bill does NOT imply that there was NO evidence. That's a personal projection. It's not what the No True bill means. At all.

But that's ALL I'm saying and it's a far cry from saying anything else.

Integrity means everything. And I'm really that civics geek who cares about the process. But, I think politics is pornography for polite society in that it's the obscene exploitation of one group for the pleasure of another group. So I really don't very much care for political concerns.

What matters is being right and true. At ANY cost... because integrity has no cost.

 

[RamzFanz]

You're right. I misread something quickly going back on Zimmerman and his 2nd degree murder charge and I think it was improperly worded. It's what I get for going too fast. No, the prosecutor used her discretion in FL to charge him directly. And yes, for the very reasons I cited in THIS case, most of the prosecutors refused to prosecute. Difference is, they outright refused. DA McCulloch COULD have done that. Some argue he should have done that. But he didn't. He convened the Grand Jury. By doing that, he potentially opened a really big and bad can of worms.

As for what I want?

I'll be clear. I don't care one lick about expediency. I care about the process being true and having integrity.

If that costs a nickel or a million dollars, I don't care.

As for "everyone reasonable", I'm not taking sides on these cases, so quit it. Quit arguing with me as if I think Officer Wilson is GUILTY.

I'm NOT saying that. YOU keep saying he's INNOCENT. I keep saying you can't say that because the process was subverted. I'm saying we can't KNOW. He never had an adversarial DA confront his testimony which WAS inconsistent and didn't match the DNA. No one's did. That matters. The DA functioned as his defense attorney. So who really dug into the Officer's testimony? If folks want to proclaim him INNOCENT, who really cross examined him and banged out all of the inconsistencies in his story? Oh, that's right... no one. Because the ADA gave him a hand job in front of the Grand Jury. And it makes me mad because neither you, nor I, nor anyone on this forum would be accorded that leniency. Either have the conviction to do your job as the DA (like the JAG lawyers who stood up to both Presidents Bush and Obama over Gitmo) or if you're going to convene the Grand Jury, DO IT. Get the indictment and let a jury decide. But do NOT subvert justice by hamstringing the Grand Jury process. That's just wrong.

You're saying the Grand Jury pronounced him INNOCENT, that there was NO evidence to support an indictment. I'm saying the Grand Jury returned No True bills which only means that under their given conditions, there either was not enough evidence or not enough connection of the evidence to the charges to return an indictment. I've articulated umpteen times WHY that was and how the Grand Jury simply cannot in any way pronounce anyone innocent. Ever. And because the Grand Jury deliberations are secret, we can NEVER know what you are trying to say. They may have been mixed or unified on the evidence, but not on the charges. We can't know and will never know. A No True bill does NOT imply that there was NO evidence. That's a personal projection. It's not what the No True bill means. At all.

But that's ALL I'm saying and it's a far cry from saying anything else.

Integrity means everything. And I'm really that civics geek who cares about the process. But, I think politics is pornography for polite society in that it's the obscene exploitation of one group for the pleasure of another group. So I really don't very much care for political concerns.

What matters is being right and true. At ANY cost... because integrity has no cost.

Sorry dude, you're killing me. You are ranting and not addressing the core issue. This isn't subversion or misrepresentation, it's simple.

Grand jury:

There must be a crime to indict.

We must believe we know who might have committed that crime.

If it's self defense, there is NO CRIME.

 

[Mackeyser]

Self-defense is not a de-facto exoneration.

One cannot simply proclaim self-defense and BE exonerated.

Yes, IF it's self-defense... then there may not be a crime. That presumes the actions are encapsulated within the time requiring self-defense. There are standards for this. However, because there are LIMITS to self-defense, that must be subject to examination. Further, simply alleging self-defense isn't enough. The facts must support that.

Again, I've given examples.

But you keep arguing with me as if I think Officer Wilson is guilty.

I'm saying that the DAs office didn't do their jobs properly.

We're not so much at odds as at oblique angles.

I simply refuse to proclaim Officer Wilson INNOCENT and I never will because I CAN'T.

I can say he wasn't indicted. That's true and correct. But I can't say he's innocent like some folks are hellbent to be about.

Then again, I'm not trying to say he's guilty either. I'm just saying I can't say he's innocent.

Can't believe I missed a day of WoW going on about Grand Juries... wonders will never cease....

 

[Boffo97]

Yeah I saw the legal insurrection thing @RamzFanz posted. I would not want that guy defending me.

1) Williams is relevant because the exculpatory evidence was furnished for Officer Wilson's benefit to exonerate him. Not only is that not required, it's the exact opposite of the function of the DA in front of the Grand Jury. His role is prosecutorial. It's adversarial. The judge is there for Justice with a big J. The DA is in front of the Grand Jury to get an indictment. You don't go in front of them unless you want one. It's like standing at a urinal and expecting a pizza. Once in a blue moon, that might happen, but when you deliberately walk up to a urinal and unzip, it's for a reason: you gotta pee. When as a DA you convene a Grand Jury, it's for a reason: you want an indictment. Anything else is as crazy as expecting a pizza at a urinal.

2) They grand jury may or may NOT hear evidence of self-defense. Now, it only makes sense for a prosecutor to include some of that evidence because if the evidence can't even get him an indictment, he surely can't get the verdict he wants. However, and this is important, the DA must explain the limits of self-defense, the limits of an officer's powers (in other words, why this wasn't within his authority as an officer) and why the evidence STILL points to an indictment. If that Legal Insurrection article were remotely worth anything, no one would go on trial for self-defense. They'd never even be INDICTED. But, as we know with George Zimmerman's trial, self-defense most certainly didn't prevent him from being indicted.

So, here's the deal. Either... they had the evidence, which it's pretty clear they did. 'Cuz we can see it now. At least enough for an indictment. Any DA that wanted to indict him could have and if the DoJ gets involved you'll all see that. You really can pretty much indict a ham sandwich. It's almost impossible NOT to be indicted, actually. Defense lawyers will tell you that it doesn't really mean much. It's just a step in the process. But it's an important step. Or... they really didn't know how or want to make a case on Officer Wilson. In which case, they should have chosen a different method to diffuse the political situation.

The legal system already mistreats too many as it is. The last thing we need are more high profile examples of unequal justice and unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Had everyone just had faith in the system, the trial would have happened and almost certainly, Officer Wilson would have been found Not Guilty. Instead, we're left with "the fix is in" and the media and social media vying to out-irresponsible one another...

I'd rather advocate for the process and integrity. And let the chips fall where they may.

The basic problem remains though that under the system you're describing, ANY case of self defense, no matter how obvious, MUST go to trial. All that does is waste taxpayer money and further traumatize people put through a tough choice.

I agree Wilson could have been indicted, but there's no good reason he should have been. You seem to be claiming that without a trial, there'll never be "justice" for anyone involved. That won't happen anyway. There is no possible way a trial that resulted in a not guilty verdict for Wilson would have been accepted by those refusing to accept that the lack of indictment here was valid. All an indictment and trial for someone who was obviously innocent according to the evidence would have done would be continue to drag this out.

 

[RamzFanz]

Self-defense is not a de-facto exoneration.

One cannot simply proclaim self-defense and BE exonerated.

Yes, IF it's self-defense... then there may not be a crime. That presumes the actions are encapsulated within the time requiring self-defense. There are standards for this. However, because there are LIMITS to self-defense, that must be subject to examination. Further, simply alleging self-defense isn't enough. The facts must support that.

Again, I've given examples.

But you keep arguing with me as if I think Officer Wilson is guilty.

I'm saying that the DAs office didn't do their jobs properly.

We're not so much at odds as at oblique angles.

I simply refuse to proclaim Officer Wilson INNOCENT and I never will because I CAN'T.

I can say he wasn't indicted. That's true and correct. But I can't say he's innocent like some folks are hellbent to be about.

Then again, I'm not trying to say he's guilty either. I'm just saying I can't say he's innocent.

Can't believe I missed a day of WoW going on about Grand Juries... wonders will never cease....

Yes, one cannot simply proclaim self-defense and BE exonerated. Which is why the exculpatory evidence is required.

One cannot simply proclaim murder when there is self-defense and expect indictment either.

We can't say he's innocent but we can certainly say there is no evidence of guilt.

 

[Boffo97]

We can't say he's innocent but we can certainly say there is no evidence of guilt.

And my point basically boils down to not agreeing that the DA's job is to seek indictments no matter what even when there is no evidence of guilt (and in fact, a lot of contradictory evidence to it).

 

[Ramhusker]

You'd think the DA's job would be easy since 50% of the crime is perpetrated by 2% of the population but....................................

 

[RamzFanz]

And my point basically boils down to not agreeing that the DA's job is to seek indictments no matter what even when there is no evidence of guilt (and in fact, a lot of contradictory evidence to it).

I agree. It's not his job to seek indictments when he isn't satisfied the person may be guilty. His duty to the justice system is first and foremost to seek justice, not indictment.

 

[RamzFanz]

Explaining the duties of the Grand Jury (which wouldn't have happened in this case as this was a standing Grand Jury, not one specially convened for this matter) and explaining the charges is NOT what I was talking about.

This Grand Jury was presented evidence for three months. Per the DA McCulloch, they gave the evidence to the Grand Jury and allowed them to come to their own conclusion.

Well, that's just great. Except, he knows full damn well that's not how it's done and it's not how HIS department does it every day.

Using your template:

Prosecutor: Good morning. We have before us a possibility of murder one, manslaughter one, manslaughter two or aggravated assault. A police officer (that wouldn't be excluded) exited his vehicle, drew a gun, and killed an unarmed man who may or may not have been fleeing. It is a crime to kill another person and the Officer who did it admitted to doing it. The Officer sustained minor facial injuries in the altercation with the deceased. The law in Missouri allows a police officer to.... What it doesn't allow is.... The evidence will show support for these charges. Let's begin with the evidence.

Jury: Indict.

Big difference. They Grand Jury would know about the fact that the person was an officer, of course. I've never presented to a Grand Jury, obviously, so I don't know if presenting uncertainty like that is common. It's generally pretty UNcommon at trial. But what the DA has gone to great pains to talk about at length is that they did NOT influence the jury... which is the whole damned point of the Grand Jury. It's NOT supposed to be a neutral process. It's a one-sided, prosecutorial affair. It's absolutely NOT about guilt or innocence... just... is there enough prima facie evidence to support the charges so that the jurisdiction can be allowed to levy a charge against the person(s) or entity.

Again... George Zimmerman. Self-Defense in Florida with Stand Your Ground laws. He was indicted. And he was indicted when most everyone knew full well with the Stand Your Ground laws that it would be almost impossible to convict him even as he instigated. So, yes, if you have any question, in Florida, you can walk up to someone, START a fight, THEN feel threatened and shoot them dead. Plus, you can tack on that the police had specifically instructed him NOT to interact with Trayvon Martin. Did the Grand Jury hear all of this? Almost certainly NOT. They heard enough to indict, not convict, because that was their role.

Now, if Self-defense doesn't allow for that to happen...how'd he GET indicted? How do all those who stand trial claiming self-defense actually GET to trial?

Well, because self-defense isn't a be all and end all, it simply raises the bar AT TRIAL. And defense lawyers are trying to raise bar for the Grand Jury.

It's actually a conservative notion which Justice Scalia puts forth to keep the Grand Jury prosecutorial. McCulloch violates that by using it as a defense tool for Officer Wilson.

Now. Does it violate any laws in Missouri? I don't know. I doubt that.

Does it violate any legal canon? Again, I doubt that, although I can't imagine that violating the purpose of the Grand Jury is ethical.

Does it establish a passive/aggressive precedent for any DA to misuse the Grand Jury and present the No True bills to the public as "verdicts"? Absolutely. It's what's happened here and I fully expect it to happen more and more as DAs of all political stripes run for cover and want to shield themselves from unpopular outcomes of cases. They can blame any outcome on a Grand Jury that by law must remain secret. It's perfect cover for any politician, which every DA ultimately is.

But a No True bill isn't a verdict. It doesn't proclaim anyone's guilt or innocence. They don't exonerate anyone. And because the Grand Jury is secret, we can't poll them to know if they were unified or if the Grand Jury was split or even viewed the evidence the same or with the same weight. We are not allowed to know.

The secrecy of the Grand Jury is a good thing and has a good purpose. However, the more the Grand Jury is misused, the more that secrecy will become a bad thing and Grand Juries will come under attack when really, those who misuse them should be, instead.

I can see that this is going nowhere. If you think Zimmerman walked up to Martin and started a fight despite all of the evidence contrary, you made up your mind about that case regardless of the evidence also. No sensible person would have indicted Zimmerman because there was no evidence of a crime. Everyone refused to indict. They had to bring in a patsy to get the indictment and avoid the grand jury system. If you want a rigged case to talk about, that was rigged.

Self-defense is a complete defense. If you prove self-defense, than the underlying crime is not a crime. Period. THAT is what he is referring to. You keep changing it to absolute.

In your example you tell the grand jury he is a police officer. That's exculpatory evidence. It's is a defense and wouldn't be admissible in your hangman's jury. Facial injuries? Nope. Exculpatory and not relevant to the prosecutor's job.

 

[Mackeyser]

Self defense is NOT a "complete" defense". I've already showed how there are limits to self-defense even in states with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. That "complete" business is the position of ONE defense atty posting his opinion in a poorly written article. It's not legal doctrine or canon.

Anyway, I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion because this has degenerated into dogmatic support for Wilson. And I really don't appreciate having what I'm saying repeatedly misrepresented. I mean your last paragraph is inflammatory, shows you haven't read what I've been posting and projects and attributes wrong statements and ideas to me.

It was always an academic discussion, but clearly for some it's more than that and it's not worth where this is going. Team Wilson got what they wanted and no one's gonna deny them...VICTORY!

Well, sorry. I'll never, ever, ever say Officer Wilson is innocent or say that no evidence existed to indict because neither statement is factual.

So, rather than be frustrated about all this, I'll just move on before I say something I regret. The better part of valor is discretion...

 

[Boffo97]

Anyway, I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion because this has degenerated into dogmatic support for Wilson.

Since you've said you're bowing out, I'm not going to respond to the rest of this other than saying I continue to think that the legal opinions you've been basing your argument on are wrong. To me, they fail the smell test. I would not want to live in a country where prosecutors were required to seek indictments no matter how small of a chance they thought those indictments had of being successful. Everyone would end up being tried at some point or another.

But I take objection to the idea that your opposition in this thread are expressing "dogmatic" support for Wilson. No one is. People have researched the case and they feel that the findings of the forensics investigation back Wilson's story completely. If those results suggested otherwise, I for one would gladly be pushing for Wilson's indictment and punishment as well.

Some might never say Officer Wilson is innocent... I'd suggest at least some of those some would have never said that anyway, even if there was a trial.

 

[Ramhusker]

Self defense is NOT a "complete" defense". I've already showed how there are limits to self-defense even in states with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. That "complete" business is the position of ONE defense atty posting his opinion in a poorly written article. It's not legal doctrine or canon.

Anyway, I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion because this has degenerated into dogmatic support for Wilson. And I really don't appreciate having what I'm saying repeatedly misrepresented. I mean your last paragraph is inflammatory, shows you haven't read what I've been posting and projects and attributes wrong statements and ideas to me.

It was always an academic discussion, but clearly for some it's more than that and it's not worth where this is going. Team Wilson got what they wanted and no one's gonna deny them...VICTORY!

Well, sorry. I'll never, ever, ever say Officer Wilson is innocent or say that no evidence existed to indict because neither statement is factual.

So, rather than be frustrated about all this, I'll just move on before I say something I regret. The better part of valor is discretion...

I understand your frustration. This whole ordeal is being portrayed as something it wasn't. From day one, Brown was painted as a "gentle giant" gunned down by a racist white cop. And reality can't be further from the truth. Did Wilson overreact? Could Wilson have taken a different approach? Is Wilson racist? We may never have clear cut answers to those questions but what we do know is Brown stole cigars that day, ruffed up the store owner, and had been smoking pot. He was walking down the middle of the street that day, gave the cops a hard time, struck a cop, and charged a cop after all that had occurred. Brown was living the life of a thug and met the likely demise of one. Sad story. Kid looks like he had the odds stacked against him. Maybe he felt there was no other way to live. Maybe that is the only way he knew to live. He obviously didn't have a strong support group around him. His parents were absent. He was living with his grandmother. His mother and friends attack his grandmother (not sure if same grandmother he lived with) and cousin in October for selling Mike Brown merchandise and take the money. It doesn't take long to figure out the kid hadn't exactly been living in a loving environment. It seems this story plays out over and over again in this country.

 

[Mackeyser]

Boffo, I stand by dogmatic because facts don't change anything for you guys.

You just now said that "the findings of the forensics investigation back Wilson's story completely. Which one? The account he gave immediately after the shooting (where the detective took no notes... I mean seriously...) or the very different account he gave a week later? By the way, neither account fully meshes with the DNA evidence. So, when you and Ramzfanz make these sweeping statements like "no evidence" and stuff like you said above... I can't take it seriously.

As for our legal system, it's what we got. The prosecutor seeks to prosecute, the defense seeks to defend, the judge rules on procedure and either the judge or jury return a verdict. And we, the people, must oversee the system to ensure that no part of the system is misused, abused or neglected. As often as not, it's we, the peoples fault for failing as citizens to oversee our government including our legal system.

But rest assured know it or not, like it or not, you DO live in that country...now...

Ready for a bigger shock? Habeas Corpus hasn't been the law of the land for some time. Might be the "home of the brave", but the land of the free is stretching it...

What is and how we want it are quite often two vastly different things.

Now I'm doing a really crappy job of exiting this thread, so I'll just stop typing...