Ferguson Grand Juror Sues to Speak Out Against Prosecution

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Al Doggity]

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.

[blacken700]

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