Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Al Doggity on January 05, 2015, 08:20:10 AM
-
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-juror-sues-mcculloch-says-he-mischaracterized-wilson-case
Cliffs:
- Grand Juror sues because he/she feels the prosecution was dishonest about why jury did not bring charges.
- Juror believes case wrongly focused on victim and that legal standards were conveyed in a muddled manner
- Prosecution never recommended a charge, but gave jury thousands of pages of evidence- an unusual tactic in grand jury hearings
Prosecution earlier admitted that they were aware at least one witness for Darren Wilson was obviously lying, but let her testify anyway.
-
Oh and when and if there was a trial w the burden of proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT standard applied - Wilson was going to ever get convicted?
F brown - that thug and pos brought his own fate upon himself.
-
Good luck on that law suit. Unless there was some type of duress outside influence it's going to get thrown out. It makes that juror look like a fool. Ha, on top of that it's not even the prosecutors decision to deny someone the right to testify for an individual even if they lie about having knowledge of the events....the P will later discredit the witness, during trial.
If anything this GJ was tilted against the officer. The P even allowed the defense to submit evidence (lying witnesses, etc.)
-
Who cares?
Other than Al Sharpton, who will certainly be standing next to this person if they are successful.
-
Who cares?
Other than Al Sharpton, who will certainly be standing next to this person if they are successful.
It's pretty obvious that the prosecution did their best to make sure the case couldn't go forward. Wilson wasn't even cross-examined when he was on the stand. He simply talked without interruption. I'd definitely be interested to hear how different the actual process was from what the prosecution describes.
-
It's pretty obvious that the prosecution did their best to make sure the case couldn't go forward. Wilson wasn't even cross-examined when he was on the stand. He simply talked without interruption. I'd definitely be interested to hear how different the actual process was from what the prosecution describes.
It's a grand jury, not a trial.
If you knew how the grand jury process worked, then you would know that the prosecution showed every piece of evidence even those pieces of evidence that were nothing but lies.
-
It's pretty obvious that the prosecution did their best to make sure the case couldn't go forward. Wilson wasn't even cross-examined when he was on the stand. He simply talked without interruption. I'd definitely be interested to hear how different the actual process was from what the prosecution describes.
This doesn't change the fact Brown smoked dope, robbed a store, assaulted a cop, tried to take the cop's gun, and charged the cop. If this wasn't a racially charged case, it probably wouldn't even have gone to a grand jury.
-
This doesn't change the fact Brown smoked dope, robbed a store, assaulted a cop, tried to take the cop's gun, and charged the cop. If this wasn't a racially charged case, it probably wouldn't even have gone to a grand jury.
The forensics showing the gun shots were close range and from a struggle, numerous fabricated eyewitnesses, a separate DOJ autopsy, etc.
No way this should have even gone before a grand jury with the amount of evidence against the criminal.
-
It's a grand jury, not a trial.
If you knew how the grand jury process worked, then you would know that the prosecution showed every piece of evidence even those pieces of evidence that were nothing but lies.
Nope, because the prosecution actually cross-examined other "witnesses".
-
Nope, because the prosecution actually cross-examined other "witnesses".
Must have been those "witnesses" who claimed Brown was shot in the back.
The officer's statements and testimony were consistent with the forensic evidence.
-
Must have been those "witnesses" who claimed Brown was shot in the back.
The officer's statements and testimony were consistent with the forensic evidence.
Like him being punched in the face so hard he thought he was going to black out?
-
Like him being punched in the face so hard he thought he was going to black out?
Absolutely.
-
I doubt it would change anything but why shouldn't grand jurors be allowed to speak in a presumably, relatively free country. It adds openness, transparency, and legitimacy to the process.
What's the justification that it's so important that it overrides the persons first Amendment right?
Besides, the prosecutors released all the data. It clearly seems a legit shoot. Why can't they talk about it?
-
I have never seen a man so viciously beaten. A beating that bad, one cannot tell 20 feet from 150 feet.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=562460.0;attach=593797;image)
-
I doubt it would change anything but why shouldn't grand jurors be allowed to speak in a presumably, relatively free country. It adds openness, transparency, and legitimacy to the process.
What's the justification that it's so important that it overrides the persons first Amendment right?
Besides, the prosecutors released all the data. It clearly seems a legit shoot. Why can't they talk about it?
Here is one explanation:
Secrecy
Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[17][18] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[17]
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 US 677 (1958), permitted the disclosure of grand jury transcripts under certain restrictions: "a private party seeking to obtain grand jury transcripts must demonstrate that 'without the transcript a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done'" and must make its requests "with particularity".[17] Further, First Amendment protections generally permit the witnesses summoned by a grand jury to discuss their testimony, although Dennis v. United States, 384 US 855 (1966), found that such public discussion permits release of the transcripts of their actual testimony.[17]
The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires the government to disclose to the defense any statements made by the accused to the grand jury, and, with respect to non-party witnesses, that after a witness has testified on direct examination at trial, any statement made to the grand jury by such witness be disclosed to the defense.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Secrecy
-
Here is one explanation:
This stuff wouldn't even apply to this case. Some grand jury transcripts were released and this isn't about grand jury proceedings it's about the grand jurors being able to speak to the media.
-
This stuff wouldn't even apply to this case. Some grand jury transcripts were released and this isn't about grand jury proceedings it's about the grand jurors being able to speak to the media.
The policy is in place for the greater good, not for one specific case.
-
The policy is in place for the greater good, not for one specific case.
No, you missed the point. What you posted described why grand juries are secret, not why grand jurors are prevented from speaking about the case afterwards. It's not practiced uniformly by states.
-
No, you missed the point. What you posted described why grand juries are secret, not why grand jurors are prevented from speaking about the case afterwards. It's not practiced uniformly by states.
What?? Some pretty retarded logic there. The reason they cannot speak is because the proceedings are secret.
-
No, you missed the point. What you posted described why grand juries are secret, not why grand jurors are prevented from speaking about the case afterwards. It's not practiced uniformly by states.
Agreed. I can understand keeping the proceedings secret (though I'm not big on it), but once over I'm not clear why a grand juror can't comment. Hell, even if they say something to the effect of they can't call out witnesses, etc...that might be fine. They can just talk about the process, what they felt was right/wrong, etc.
-
LOL continue to grab at straws morons, this wont go anywhere and Wilson is rightfully a free man.
-
LOL continue to grab at straws morons, this wont go anywhere and Wilson is rightfully a free man.
No, I don't think it will go anywhere, and Wilson is probably a victim in the sense that he had to quit his job. But I'm not comfortable with the whole secrecy surrounding the grand jury. At least not once it's over.
Beach posted some good reasons to keep it secret during, but once done, I would think it should be ok to speak about (within certain bounds as I noted above).
-
No, I don't think it will go anywhere, and Wilson is probably a victim in the sense that he had to quit his job. But I'm not comfortable with the whole secrecy surrounding the grand jury. At least not once it's over.
Beach posted some good reasons to keep it secret during, but once done, I would think it should be ok to speak about (within certain bounds as I noted above).
for certain people (albert probably included) nothing that will or could come out about the grand jury will ever be enough. I can gree that the process should be more public but you would certainly have to leave names out especially in a case like this.
-
for certain people (albert probably included) nothing that will or could come out about the grand jury will ever be enough. I can gree that the process should be more public but you would certainly have to leave names out especially in a case like this.
Retardo, you can barely manage to speak for yourself in a coherent way. Don't speak for others.
-
What?? Some pretty retarded logic there. The reason they cannot speak is because the proceedings are secret.
The basis of the lawsuit is that the prosecution HAS been speaking to the media and misrepresenting what was presented to and concluded by the jury.
-
The basis of the lawsuit is that the prosecution HAS been speaking to the media and misrepresenting what was presented to and concluded by the jury.
I understand the basis of the lawsuit, but you cannot logically separate the basis for making the proceedings secret in the first place from the fact the proceedings are over, even if the transcripts are released to the public. For example, part of the reason the proceedings are secret is to encourage witnesses to come forward and give full, frank testimony, that whole environment can be destroyed if you allow grand jurors to start talking about the proceedings, witnesses, etc. after the proceedings are concluded. I think that same pressure applies to the grand jurors themselves, who might be targets of protests, violence, etc. based on their votes.
-
I understand the basis of the lawsuit, but you cannot logically separate the basis for making the proceedings secret in the first place from the fact the proceedings are over, even if the transcripts are released to the public.
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a public grand jury might affect a subsequent trial.
-
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a public grand jury might affect a subsequent trial.
Indeed, and they selectively admonish juries all the time.
-
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a public grand jury might affect a subsequent trial.
No you can't, because it can deter witnesses in future proceedings from testifying and make it more difficult for grand jurors to serve and/or vote without feeling intimidated.
What is a "public grand jury"?
-
No you can't, because it can deter witnesses in future proceedings from testifying and make it more difficult for grand jurors to serve and/or vote without feeling intimidated.
What is a "public grand jury"?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/05/ferguson-michael-brown-grand-juror-sues-gag-order/21284797/
"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."
James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law, said the Missouri statute was designed to reflect the typical circumstance, where grand jury proceedings are held secretly. But in this case, the prosecutor's office spoke extensively about the process and published transcripts and other evidence presented to the panel.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/05/ferguson-michael-brown-grand-juror-sues-gag-order/21284797/
"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."
James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law, said the Missouri statute was designed to reflect the typical circumstance, where grand jury proceedings are held secretly. But in this case, the prosecutor's office spoke extensively about the process and published transcripts and other evidence presented to the panel.
Ok. And? What is a "public grand jury"?
-
Ok. And? What is a "public grand jury"?
LOL ok It's pretty obvious. A grand jury if it were open to the public instead secret. It may not be a legal term (it wasn't supposed to be taken as such) but the concept is pretty obvious.
-
And what good would a trial have done? The prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Wilson INTENTIONALLY tried to murder Brown.
That fat retard and animal just robbed a store and attacked a cop - and was going back for a second shot at him and you think a case like that has any chance in hell of being successful?
Then what? The same worthless scum protesting no indictment would be burning down stores and looting and acting a fool due to no conviction.
-
let me guess this juror is black :o
the gentle giant was just misunderstood :D
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michael-brown-store-robbery.jpg?w=640)
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/05/ferguson-michael-brown-grand-juror-sues-gag-order/21284797/
"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."
James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law, said the Missouri statute was designed to reflect the typical circumstance, where grand jury proceedings are held secretly. But in this case, the prosecutor's office spoke extensively about the process and published transcripts and other evidence presented to the panel.
There is a difference between a gag order and someone filing a law suit alleging that the evidence was one sided, delving into the minds of the jurors , etc.
Gag orders are likely to be lifted based on the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances. I'm not sure why this professor is talking about first amendment rights this is not at issue what it is at issue is the fact this juror is complaining of prejudice, and a wrong verdict.
Also, the policy against letting jurors speak out on some matters is enrichment. The justice system having jurors served is not meant to enrich a juror by enrich out law system.
-
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-juror-sues-mcculloch-says-he-mischaracterized-wilson-case
Prosecution earlier admitted that they were aware at least one witness for Darren Wilson was obviously lying, but let her testify anyway.
What about the idiots who lied about the thug having his hands up and never assaulting the officer?
-
What about the idiots who lied about the thug having his hands up and never assaulting the officer?
also the idiot that lied and said he chased the attacked 30 feet, when it was really 150 feet.
Kind of moves it from self-defense at the car, to self-defense in a second confrontation. Connecting the two just doesn't work.
-
also the idiot that lied and said he chased the attacked 30 feet, when it was really 150 feet.
Kind of moves it from self-defense at the car, to self-defense in a second confrontation. Connecting the two just doesn't work.
It does if you consider the testimony that Brown fled and then turned back around and came toward Wilson. The prosecution grilled all the witnesses they found gave conflicting testimony even those who supported Wilson's case. This is what happens when you have wildly conflicting witness testimony that is not supported by forensic evidence.
-
let me guess this juror is black :o
the gentle giant was just misunderstood :D
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michael-brown-store-robbery.jpg?w=640)
BUMP
-
It does if you consider the testimony that Brown fled and then turned back around and came toward Wilson. The prosecution grilled all the witnesses they found gave conflicting testimony even those who supported Wilson's case. This is what happens when you have wildly conflicting witness testimony that is not supported by forensic evidence.
You're talking about something completely different than what I am.
You're talking about the circumstances of the 2nd shooting, which I agree with completely.
HOWEVER the cop tried to connect the 2 incidents. "I was so scared from getting beaten by godzilla in car, and there he was, 30 feet away when I got out".
No, no no. Your ass took a whooping. You got out and saw the dude limping away. You didn't hop on the radio. You took your loopy ass on a foot chase that went half a football field. Then you entered into a SECOND confrontation. And while that shoot might have been a legal one, I've said that from day one - you cannot use how scared you were in the car, as part of why you used deadly force 90 seconds later.
Cause anyone THAT fcking scared will call it in, not take on a 1-man solo show in crowded streets, head ringing from ass whooping and shaking terrified from being scared like a 5 year old.
Stop mixing the 2 up. Separate incidents. We know why ;)
-
LOL ok It's pretty obvious. A grand jury if it were open to the public instead secret. It may not be a legal term (it wasn't supposed to be taken as such) but the concept is pretty obvious.
Oh I see. This is another instance where only you obviously know what you're talking about.
So, in other words, there is no such thing as a "public grand jury."
-
HOWEVER the cop tried to connect the 2 incidents. "I was so scared from getting beaten by godzilla in car, and there he was, 30 feet away when I got out".
I ran this alleged quote by Officer Wilson through Google and couldn't find a source. Do you have a link or is this another instance of you just making stuff up?
-
also the idiot that lied and said he chased the attacked 30 feet, when it was really 150 feet.
Kind of moves it from self-defense at the car, to self-defense in a second confrontation. Connecting the two just doesn't work.
30 doesn't mean shit,he was coming at the cop got what he deserved, even if the cop ran a mile,shit for brains
-
You're talking about something completely different than what I am.
You're talking about the circumstances of the 2nd shooting, which I agree with completely.
HOWEVER the cop tried to connect the 2 incidents. "I was so scared from getting beaten by godzilla in car, and there he was, 30 feet away when I got out".
No, no no. Your ass took a whooping. You got out and saw the dude limping away. You didn't hop on the radio. You took your loopy ass on a foot chase that went half a football field. Then you entered into a SECOND confrontation. And while that shoot might have been a legal one, I've said that from day one - you cannot use how scared you were in the car, as part of why you used deadly force 90 seconds later.
Cause anyone THAT fcking scared will call it in, not take on a 1-man solo show in crowded streets, head ringing from ass whooping and shaking terrified from being scared like a 5 year old.
Stop mixing the 2 up. Separate incidents. We know why ;)
he didn't have to tie the two together it was all the same crime scene, 30 or 150 feet apart
-
he didn't have to tie the two together it was all the same crime scene, 30 or 150 feet apart
what is the cutoff? 151 feet? 5,280 feet?
At some point, he can't use being scared for his life at the car anymore. I'd say, after 150 feet of chasing, you're kinda out of self-defense mode lol
-
let me guess this juror is black :o
the gentle giant was just misunderstood :D
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michael-brown-store-robbery.jpg?w=640)
BUMP
-
Gentle giant right there.
-
Gentle giant right there.
This is who these idiots are making themselves look like asses over.
-
This is who these idiots are making themselves look like asses over.
Sad. Pathetic. They missed a golden opportunity to highlight how poor life choices can have tragic consequences.
-
Sad. Pathetic. They missed a golden opportunity to highlight how poor life choices can have tragic consequences.
That is not even remotely on their radar. To these stupid morons - Brown is a victim. In reality - a thug and pos like Brown - had he lived - would have been nothing but a lifelong career criminal, a tax sponge, and a waste of time and effort. No loss whatsoever.
What these fools like Option Fail can't get past is that this thug shared a similar skin pigmentation as they do. They are the true racists since they can't get beyond skin color and asses a situation for what it is. You rob a store, man handle a clerk, attack a cop, etc - sorry - that is not how a civilized person acts. I know in their warped existence whites or others should just accept their violent outbursts and bs - but in reality you get jacked for that. So welcome to reality morons - civilize yourselves or get put down accordingly. Just how it is.
-
Oh I see. This is another instance where only you obviously know what you're talking about.
So, in other words, there is no such thing as a "public grand jury."
Another poster quoted that post and agreed with it, so it's hardly such an esoteric concept that only I am able to understand it.
You posted that you can't separate the logic behind making the proceedings secret from the fact that the proceedings were over. My original response:
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a public grand jury might affect a subsequent trial.
My amended response:
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a grand jury might affect a subsequent trial were it to be open to the public, as opposed to in secret.
There ya go. ::)
-
Another poster quoted that post and agreed with it, so it's hardly such an esoteric concept that only I am able to understand it.
You posted that you can't separate the logic behind making the proceedings secret from the fact that the proceedings were over. My original response:
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a public grand jury might affect a subsequent trial.
My amended response:
Yes, you can since the basis for that secrecy is how a grand jury might affect a subsequent trial were it to be open to the public, as opposed to in secret.
There ya go. ::)
::)
Uh, right. You referenced a "public grand jury." I suspect Skip, who is a smart guy, didn't know you were pulling that phrase out of your rear end.
Honestly, I had never of a "public grand jury," so that's why I asked. I learn something new pretty much every day, so I thought maybe I was going to learn a new concept. No such luck. lol
In any event, allowing grand jurors to talk about secret proceedings destroys part of the bases for making those proceedings secret in the first place. But I said that already.
Also, regarding how this might affect other grand jurors, it would not surprise me if members of the Spike Lee ilk would try and harass grand jurors who failed to indict someone in a racially tinged case. Remember what he did in the George Zimmerman case?
-
::)
Uh, right. You referenced a "public grand jury." I suspect Skip, who is a smart guy, didn't know you were pulling that phrase out of your rear end.
Honestly, I had never of a "public grand jury," so that's why I asked. I learn something new pretty much every day, so I thought maybe I was going to learn a new concept. No such luck. lo
It's pretty much a non-issue, either way. I didn't claim that it was a legal term and if you misunderstood the initial post then the subsequent posts should have cleared it up for you. Others seemed to understand it without any problem. :-\
In any event, allowing grand jurors to talk about secret proceedings destroys part of the bases for making those proceedings secret in the first place. But I said that already.
And you were incorrect about that. Part of the lawsuit is based on the fact that the prosecutor HAS been talking to the media. I posted quotes from some legal scholars talking about this case.
Also, regarding how this might affect other grand jurors, it would not surprise me if members of the Spike Lee ilk would try and harass grand jurors who failed to indict someone in a racially tinged case. Remember what he did in the George Zimmerman case?
The grand jury being allowed to talk media doesn't mean that they are forced to talk to media.
-
It's pretty much a non-issue, either way. I didn't claim that it was a legal term and if you misunderstood the initial post then the subsequent posts should have cleared it up for you. Others seemed to understand it without any problem. :-\
And you were incorrect about that. Part of the lawsuit is based on the fact that the prosecutor HAS been talking to the media. I posted quotes from some legal scholars talking about this case.
The grand jury being allowed to talk media doesn't mean that they are forced to talk to media.
A grand juror talking to the media can talk about things that other grand jurors may not want public, like their identities, how they voted, etc. That's partly why they are secret.
-
A grand juror talking to the media can talk about things that other grand jurors may not want public, like their identities, how they voted, etc. That's partly why they are secret.
Not necessarily. The judge doesn't have to entirely lift gag order. They could just altar certain conditions.
-
Not necessarily. The judge doesn't have to entirely lift gag order. They could just altar certain conditions.
That is sort of like being a little pregnant. Once you let someone start talking about secret proceedings, the genie is out of the bottle. I doubt partially lifting secrecy restrictions is workable.
-
That is sort of like being a little pregnant. Once you let someone start talking about secret proceedings, the genie is out of the bottle. I doubt partially lifting secrecy restrictions is workable.
Not really. All gag orders have conditions. This a report about media, juries and gag orders from 1998:
http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1767
In late October 1997, a unanimous panel affirmed Vance's order, concluding that the restriction was narrowly tailored because it applied only to questions about deliberations, not "general reactions" to jury service, and did not prohibit jurors from speaking out on their own.
-
what is the cutoff? 151 feet? 5,280 feet?
At some point, he can't use being scared for his life at the car anymore. I'd say, after 150 feet of chasing, you're kinda out of self-defense mode lol
so he can only fear for his life once lol you are a dumb fuck.so when he came at him again he couldn't fear again lol