Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Was Grand Jury in Ferguson Case Lead To Their Decision By Prosecutor?

  1. #1

    Was Grand Jury in Ferguson Case Lead To Their Decision By Prosecutor?



    Legal experts are questioning why the grand jury that decided to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson took a number of unusual steps.

    From hearing first-hand testimony from Wilson himself to using potentially leading terminology to perhaps downplay the significance of the officer’s actions, many things make the proceedings different from most.

    Attorney Patrice Sulton speaks to RT’s Ben Swann to provide insight.



    Relevant reading - What the jury heard as Darren Wilson defended the killing of Michael Brown


    The court testimonies of those involved in the Michael Brown shooting lifted the lid on some of the most intriguing aspects of this incident. RT looks at 10 pointers from the investigation, which has left a nation divided.

    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-25-2014 at 08:35 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Of course, that's the nature of the grand jury. They hear what the prosecutors want them to hear, and that's it. And, as we have seen so often, they usually don't have the ability to think for themselves. If the DA and his/her assistants want them to indict a ham sandwich, they will most likely do it. And will almost always fail to indict a cop.

  4. #3
    many things make the proceedings different from most.
    Oh bull$#@!.

    99.9 percent of the time, cops skate.

    As long as they are smart enough and get coached, post incident, by the union lawyers, to invoke the circular force continuum and say, "my safety was endangered".

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTX View Post
    Of course, that's the nature of the grand jury. They hear what the prosecutors want them to hear, and that's it. And, as we have seen so often, they usually don't have the ability to think for themselves. If the DA and his/her assistants want them to indict a ham sandwich, they will most likely do it. And will almost always fail to indict a cop.
    Yep, most juries and grand juries are, far from what was envisioned, nothing more than government rubber stamps.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTX View Post
    Of course, that's the nature of the grand jury. They hear what the prosecutors want them to hear, and that's it. And, as we have seen so often, they usually don't have the ability to think for themselves. If the DA and his/her assistants want them to indict a ham sandwich, they will most likely do it. And will almost always fail to indict a cop.
    That's a rather vague assessment of what was discussed in the op. The officer was given 0 cross examination after testifying on his own behalf (which is unheard of) and giving an account of what allegedy happened. Actually, he was aware of a great deal of proceedings in which most defendants are never privy. Of course, there were other things discussed. I know that we want to generalize it from experience in reading similar cases but when it's actually discussed in media, I think it's helpful to the cause to take advantage of it in a way that would benefit. You're not going to see these relevant discussions take place within many other "news" platforms. Best to add useful knowledge that we have as opposed to generic I hate cops speak. That's not going to get anything accomplished.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-25-2014 at 09:28 PM.

  7. #6
    mundane initiates violence and then murders someone = indictment

    cop initiates violence and then murders someone = happy wedding, long vacation, license to freely kill and no indictment.
    "IF GOD DIDN'T WANT TO HELP AMERICA, THEN WE WOULD HAVE Hillary Clinton"!!
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    That's a rather vague assessment of what was discussed in the op. The officer was given 0 cross examination after testifying on his own behalf (which is unheard of) and giving an account of what allegedy happened. Actually, he was aware of a great deal of proceedings in which most defendants are never privy. Of course, there were other things disussed. I know that we want to generalize it from experience in reading similar cases but when it's actually discussed in media, I think it's helpful to the cause to take advantage of it in a way that would benefit. You're not going to see these relevant discussions take place within many other "news" platforms. Best to add useful knowledge that we have as opposed to generic I hate cops speak. That's not going to get anything accomplished.
    And neither is ignoring reality ....

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanTX View Post
    And neither is ignoring reality ....
    But that is exactly what you just did. You offered nothing relevant to the critical points that were specifically discussed in the op that allow these things to happen. You offered general ad-hominem that seemed to be premised upon a generalized assessment of people as opposed to sticking with what was discussed in a way that would stimulate critical thought from the average joe. Nothing else. How far do you think you're going to get with your cause that way?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-25-2014 at 09:10 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    of course, but this is the wrong case to fight police abuse. the 12 year old shot in Cleveland is a much better case, a much more sympathetic victim. Michael Brown was a thug. his step father is a thug. an indictment would have been a waste of time, and resulted in more problems when the not guilty verdict would have come in

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    of course, but this is the wrong case to fight police abuse. the 12 year old shot in Cleveland is a much better case, a much more sympathetic victim. Michael Brown was a thug. his step father is a thug. an indictment would have been a waste of time, and resulted in more problems when the not guilty verdict would have come in
    I agree, clearly the wrong case. All this case is doing is taking the public eye off of all the clear cut police abuses cases that we frequently read about here. You know, the ones that people should have been out protesting where it was not solely about race and there was no doubt about the guilt of the police officer(s).

    Now those whom were on the fence or were beginning to wake up are being moved in the direction of supporting the police, police militarization and intervention at the state/federal level. You could not have had a better Ad campaign for that witnessing the destruction of private property with threats and acts of violence all being taken against the innocent by mobs of thugs.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  13. #11
    The reason tension is high is because of the secrecy in which the grand jury operated. We basically have the foxes guarding the hen house here.

    The pot has been boiling for some time...all it took was a lid to be placed on the pot to cause a rapid boil. Ferguson is the lid.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    The reason tension is high is because of the secrecy in which the grand jury operated. We basically have the foxes guarding the hen house here.

    The pot has been boiling for some time...all it took was a lid to be placed on the pot to cause a rapid boil. Ferguson is the lid.
    Yep. True. But the purpose for sharing this wasn't to promote any means of fighting police brutality. I think that this is what some may gather from the it. We need to pay attention to how they proceed in courtrooms, though. That was essentially my logic in sharing this here. Not so much the police abuse itself. This officer just got to do things in a courtroom that few people ever get to do. It's important to know. By "lead", they actually went out of scope of normal legal procedure in these kinds of cases.

    Is what it is. I shared it. Folks may discuss it within context of their own perspective, I supppose.

  15. #13

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yep. True. But the purpose for sharing this wasn't to promote any means of fighting police brutality. I think that this is what some may gather from the it. We need to pay attention to how they proceed in courtrooms, though. That was essentially my logic in sharing this here. Not so much the police abuse itself. This officer just got to do things in a courtroom that few people ever get to do. It's important to know. By "lead", they actually went out of scope of normal legal procedure in these kinds of cases.

    Is what it is. I shared it. Folks may discuss it within context of their own perspective, I supppose.
    Understood and valid points.

  17. #15
    Darren Wilson and the Protocols of Official Exoneration

    William Norman Grigg

    The most important details in Darren Wilson’s grand jury testimony come on pages 77-78 of the transcript. Asked if he had filled out an incident report on the shooting, Wilson explained that the “protocol” in such cases is to “contact your FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] representative and he will advise you of what to do step by step.”

    When asked if he had committed his recollections to paper in a diary or journal, Wilson replied: “My statement has been written for my attorney.”

    “And that’s between you and your attorney, then?” asked the exceptionally helpful prosecutor, who received an affirmative reply.

    “So no one has asked you to write out a statement?” the assistant DA persisted.

    “No, they haven’t,” Wilson acknowledged.

    Like anybody else suspected of a crime, Wilson was presumed innocent and could not be forced to incriminate himself. Unlike a Mundane suspected of homicide, however, Wilson was given the luxury of crafting his story to fit subsequent disclosures, in consultation with a police union attorney who added the necessary melodramatic flourishes.

    Thus we are told that when Wilson grabbed Brown’s forearm through the window of his SUV, “the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.”

    Although the 18-year-old Brown possessed nearly 300 pounds of unathletic girth, Wilson was no nebbish: Like Brown, he stands 6’4″ and weighs 210 pounds.


    After being shot during the altercation in the SUV, Brown displayed the face of a “demon,” Wilson claims. After fleeing from the officer, who continued to shoot at him, Brown could be seen “almost bulking up to run through the shots,” Wilson continued, a line that doubtless reflects the verbal artistry of a well-paid police union attorney.

    Like others accused of a crime, Wilson had the right to counsel of his choice. In his case, however, a defense attorney was redundant.

    The grand jury transcript from September 26 listed the case as “State of Missouri vs. Darren Wilson,” but the assistant St. Louis County District Attorneys who examined the suspect behaved more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Their advertised task was to determine if probable cause existed to justify criminal charges against Wilson for the shooting of tardily identified robbery suspect Michael Brown. The actual function they performed was to rationalize the killing in a way that would bring about Robert McCullouch’s intended result, the no-billing of the former police officer.

    When a prosecutor actually seeks an indictment, he will not go to the trouble of presenting potentially exculpatory evidence. In fact, as former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell documents in her infuriating new book Licensed to Lie, prosecutors generally go through heroic contortions to withhold, disguise, misplace, or exclude “Brady” material. McCullouch, a prosecutor not known for his solicitude toward the accused unless they are swaddled in the vestments of the State’s coercive caste, made a point of making the case for the defense, which is a function usually carried out during a criminal trial by counsel for the defendant.

    At various points in the 92-page transcript, we can see how McCullough’s carefully guided Wilson through his testimony, prompting him to follow the script provided by his police union attorney, and either ignoring or gently correcting him when caught in the kind of contradictions upon which a motivated prosecutor would triumphantly seize. For example: Wilson claimed that at one point, Brown had “complete control” over the officer’s firearm. Under the kind prompting from one of the unusually solicitous assistant DAs, Wilson admitted that the gun never left his hand, and that his was the finger on the trigger.

    Wilson states that after he confronted Brown and Johnson (whom he did not identify as robbery suspects until after the initial contact) for jaywalking, Brown’s hostile attitude prompted him to call for backup and then cut them off with his police vehicle. When he tried to leave the vehicle, Brown allegedly shoved the car door shut and glared at the officer with an “intense face” as if intending to “overpower” him. At some point — Wilson isn’t clear on the details — Brown supposedly slugged the officer through the window.

    Reciting a well-rehearsed script, Wilson told the jurors that he scrolled through non-lethal options before pulling his gun.

    “Get back or I’m going to shoot you,” Wilson says he told Brown. At this point “He immediately grabs my gun and says, `You are too much of a pussy to shoot me,’” the officer claimed. Later in his testimony, Wilson elaborated: “He didn’t pull it from my holster, but whenever it was visible to him, he then took complete control of it.”

    Wilson threatened to kill Brown; Brown refused to be shot. This complicates the self-defense claim, which rests on Wilson’s assertion that by this time he had been struck twice by the behemoth, and was afraid that “the third one could be fatal if he hit me right.” Yet despite being repeatedly pummeled by a man-mountain of preternatural strength — a veritable Hulk Hogan, if not an Incredible Hulk — Wilson’s face displayed no visible injuries.

    The alleged blows were sufficient to justify lethal force, even against a fleeing, unarmed suspect, Wilson insists.

    “My gun was already being presented as a deadly force option while he was hitting me in the face,” he told the jurors, later saying that hurling lead down a residential street was justified in order to “protect” the public from an unarmed suspect who had assaulted an armed police officer.

    Michael Brown was apparently a shoplifter and a bully. If this was the case, he should have been compelled to make restitution to the victims. (Interestingly, although Wilson claimed to have seen stolen cigarillos in Brown’s hands during the “assault,” they were never found.) While there’s no clear evidence that Brown ever assaulted Wilson, it is indisputable from Wilson’s testimony that he was the one who escalated the encounter by threatening lethal force. This is problematic even under positivist legal precedents: Per Bad Elk vs. US, Brown — even as a criminal suspect — didn’t have a duty to die simply because Wilson had the means to kill him, and according Tennessee vs. Garner Wilson didn’t have the legal authority to kill Brown simply because he tried to evade arrest.

    One needn’t consider Michael Brown to be a winsome innocent in order to believe that Wilson’s conduct in this incident was, at best, thoroughly suspect — and suitable for examination in a genuinely adversarial process of the kind Robert McCullouch was determined to avoid.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    That's a rather vague assessment of what was discussed in the op. The officer was given 0 cross examination after testifying on his own behalf (which is unheard of) and giving an account of what allegedy happened. Actually, he was aware of a great deal of proceedings in which most defendants are never privy. Of course, there were other things discussed. I know that we want to generalize it from experience in reading similar cases but when it's actually discussed in media, I think it's helpful to the cause to take advantage of it in a way that would benefit. You're not going to see these relevant discussions take place within many other "news" platforms. Best to add useful knowledge that we have as opposed to generic I hate cops speak. That's not going to get anything accomplished.
    Grand Juries don't have "cross examination". They are the process where a prosecutor tries to convince at least 12 members of a panel of 23 that there is "probable cause" to go to trial.

    And testifying on one's own behalf is rare, but not unheard of. A "good" prosecutor would try to give all evidence to a grand jury, but most prosecutors are just looking to get a good indictment percentage and stack the witnesses with people who take their side (usually people who have been given deals to compel testimony). In this case it's probably not a thorough prosecutor being fair, it's a rigged system playing within it's rules to get the outcome they wanted.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    Grand Juries don't have "cross examination". They are the process where a prosecutor tries to convince at least 12 members of a panel of 23 that there is "probable cause" to go to trial.

    And testifying on one's own behalf is rare, but not unheard of. A "good" prosecutor would try to give all evidence to a grand jury, but most prosecutors are just looking to get a good indictment percentage and stack the witnesses with people who take their side (usually people who have been given deals to compel testimony). In this case it's probably not a thorough prosecutor being fair, it's a rigged system playing within it's rules to get the outcome they wanted.
    Except when the prosecutor is protecting the guards for the establishment.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  21. #18
    h/t Lucille: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5711980

    Ferguson – What Did You Expect? A Real Jury Decision? The System is Not Designed That Way
    http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/1...gned-that-way/
    Martin Armstrong (25 November 2014)

    Unfortunately, this is as expected as the Missouri grand jury decided not to indict a white police officer over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in August. I have explained that this need not even be racist because the grand jury system has become a joke. The government only needs to present whatever evidence they want. There is no obligation to present all the evidence because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Grand Jury is NOT entitled to all the evidence, since the trial jury will correct any deficiencies. The problem – indictments are not rendered against government people and handed out like candy for their enemies.

    Angry crowds took to the streets around the Ferguson police department after the grand jury determined there was no probable cause to charge officer Darren Wilson with any crime for the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. This stupid decision is very serious. There should have been an indictment and then let the PUBLIC see all the evidence. Hiding this incident in such a manner will NEVER satisfy not merely the black community, but the entire world. This was a very stupid decision and this decision will only now feed into the war cycle on the civil unrest side. Ferguson is a spark that ignites a new trend that will be national. To save one officer, they will set in motion the deaths of so many others. This should have gone to trial and let the people decide.

    The worst of the worst is that the Grand Jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present at the proceedings which are led by a prosecutor who is routinely pro-government. The target “defendant” has no right to even be present his case or to be informed of the proceedings secretly being conducted behind the scenes. There is no right to a lawyer in the Grand Jury. Among the legal community, Grand Jury indictments are considered a JOKE and the typical phase one hears among lawyers concern the rules are so one sided, the government could indict a “ham sandwich”.

    The argument for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979). The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart still concurred with the Court’s opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. The gist of that secrecy was people would be afraid to appear and rat out others the government wanted to indict if they were not protected. That was the same reasoning behind the Venetian Mouth of Truth and the other side is that fake evidence enters because there is no check and balance against witnesses who can then say anything to sway the Grand Jury to whatever direction the government desires. Very, very bad decision. There is no accountability whatsoever.

    The history of the grand jury is rooted in the common and civil law, extending back to Athens, pre-Norman England, and the Assize of Clarendon promulgated by Henry II. The right seems to have been first mentioned in the colonies in the Charter of Liberties and Privileges of 1683, which was passed by the first assembly permitted to be elected in the colony of New York. Included from the first in Madison’s introduced draft of the Bill of Rights, the provision elicited no recorded debate and no opposition. “The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. There is every reason to believe that our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor.

    The basic purpose of the English grand jury was to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes. Grand jurors were selected from the body of the people and their work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules. In fact, grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory. Despite its broad power to institute criminal proceedings the grand jury grew in popular favor with the years. It acquired an independence in England free from control by the Crown or judges. Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice. And in the USA as in England of old the grand jury has convened as a body of laymen, free from technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one because of prejudice and to free no one because of special favor.

    The idea that only the people can indict is very nice. But as Stalin said about elections, it does not matter how people vote, it is those who count the votes who decide elections. Well this is the same nonsense. The rules have been inverted so ONLY the government has a right to indict anyone and they ALWAYS protect their own. This type of corruption should be expected. The Grand Jury is a joke when there is secret proceedings and no right to present both sides so the Grand Jury can be deaf, dumb, and blind. The Grand Jury was originally the people standing between the people and the government. To protect government, they simply changed the rule to ensure the government need not tell the Grand Jury the truth. What Stalin said about elections applies to Grand Juries. The Government can indeed indict a ham sandwich. They mean nothing if not even less.

    Here comes the civil unrest because indeed we need major political reform in virtually every branch of government. Sorry – but he should have been indicted and he should have been given a full and fair PUBLIC TRIAL to show the world what is the truth. Now there will always be a debate as to the evidence submitted in secret.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  22. #19
    This is one of the better discussions that I've heard/read on the subject because it's broad and touches upon the phenomenon in a general way but with specific points of reference. Much is discussed here beyond what is essentially a misleading editorialization.

    Shoot ‘em up US cops! Anti-police brutality activist talks Ferguson
    ...





    The grand jury decision to spare the police officer in the case of Ferguson has sparked mass protests across the United States. The government, however, has been ready, sending hundreds of security forces, armed as if they were going to war, against the enraged crowds. Why has the death of Michael Brown and impunity of the police brought up such a massive outrage? How deeply-rooted is the problem of police brutality in American society? And why are police so eager to shoot and kill?

    Transcript - Govt encouraged looting, chaos in Ferguson to demonize protesters - anti-police brutality activist
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-29-2014 at 05:33 PM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    of course, but this is the wrong case to fight police abuse. the 12 year old shot in Cleveland is a much better case, a much more sympathetic victim. Michael Brown was a thug. his step father is a thug. an indictment would have been a waste of time, and resulted in more problems when the not guilty verdict would have come in
    No.

    We should be against all cases of judicial chicanery- not just the ones that please our particular sensibilities.
    There is no spoon.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    No.

    We should be against all cases of judicial chicanery- not just the ones that please our particular sensibilities.

    But it seems to me that the "problem" in this instance was that the prosecutor was actually fair in his presentation rather than the normal "distort the evidence in order to get an indictment" strategy. What we should be arguing here is that everyone should receive a fair grand jury process like the one Wilson got, not that he should have gotten a stacked presentation like everyone else.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Oh bull$#@!.

    99.9 percent of the time, cops skate.
    Exactly. That's why it said "most." That majority of the time that grand juries indict (and it is a huge majority) is not cops.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    But it seems to me that the "problem" in this instance was that the prosecutor was actually fair in his presentation rather than the normal "distort the evidence in order to get an indictment" strategy. What we should be arguing here is that everyone should receive a fair grand jury process like the one Wilson got, not that he should have gotten a stacked presentation like everyone else.
    "Distorting the evidence to get an indictment" is not merely a "strategy" - it is fundamentally how grand juries "work." Prosecutors have complete control over the process - there are no judges or defense attorneys involved. Prosecutors may present or exclude whatever evidence and testimony they please in order to get the results they desire. When they exclude exculpatory evidence, they are "distorting" things in order to get a "true bill" result. When they include exculpatory evidence, they are "distorting" things in order to get a "no true bill" result.

    As they exist today, grand juries are a sham operated by the State to create the illusion that "the people" have a role in the process. If a prosecutor does want to indict someone, then he does NOT present any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the grand jury. If a prosecutor does NOT want to indict someone (because that someone is a cop, for example, or some other member of the priveleged caste) - but goes through the motions of trying to do so anyway, for the sake of public appearances - then he does present any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the grand jury.

    IOW: Grand juries are a joke - a charade - a "dog and pony" show. With extremely rare exceptions, they give prosecutors whatever prosecutors want. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he gets an indictment. If he doesn't, he doesn't. McCulloch did NOT present exculpatory evidence and testimony to the grand jury in the Wilson case because he was trying to be "fair" - he did it in order to get the "no true bill" result that he wanted. And that is exactly what he got. Being "fair" did NOT have anything to do with it.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 11-29-2014 at 06:05 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    "Distorting the evidence to get an indictment" is not merely a "strategy" - it is fundamentally how grand juries "work." Prosecutors have complete control over the process - there are no judges or defense attorneys involved. Prosecutors may present or exclude whatever evidence and testimony they please in order to get the results they desire. When they exclude exculpatory evidence, they are "distorting" things in order to get a "true bill" result. When they include exculpatory evidence, they are "distorting" things in order to get a "no true bill" result.

    As they exist today, grand juries are a sham operated by the State to create the illusion that "the people" have a role in the process. If a prosecutor does want to indict someone, then he does NOT present any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the grand jury. If a prosecutor does NOT want to indict someone (because that someone is a cop, for example, or some other member of the priveleged caste) - but goes through the motions of trying to do so anyway, for the sake of public appearances - then he does present any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the grand jury.

    IOW: Grand juries are a joke - a charade - a "dog and pony" show. With extremely rare exceptions, they give prosecutors whatever prosecutors want. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he gets an indictment. If he doesn't, he doesn't. McCulloch did NOT present exculpatory evidence and testimony to the grand jury in the Wilson case because he was trying to be "fair" - he did it in order to get the "no true bill" result that he wanted. And that is exactly what he got ... and being "fair" didn't have anything to do with it.
    ^^^^
    THIS




    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Ferguson Grand Juror sues prosecutor to lift gag order
    By jmdrake in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 06:17 AM
  2. Grand juror in Missouri police shooting case sues prosecutor
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 12:38 PM
  3. How Grand Was That Ferguson Grand Jury? A Couple of Perspectives
    By Lucille in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-28-2014, 09:53 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-17-2014, 07:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •