patrick.net

Why do you hate the statements of witnesses who were truthful?

Why are you willing to dismiss more than half of the statements based on faulty logic?

The grand jury isn't supposed to try the case. When are you going to get that ?

dodgerfanjohn says

So in your opinion the DA should have announced that no charges would be filed, correct? Cause that was the ONLY other option.

Well, first, that wasn't the only other option. He could have behaved like a prosecutor and actually tried for an indictment. If the grand jury doesn't indict, fine. If it does, then you have a trial where Wilson would be found not guilty, if there was no evidence as you suggest.

But, if the prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence to indict, then present the evidence explaining why no charges were filed. Just like they did after the grand jury. It's a DA's job to determine whether or not to go to a grand jury--but once decided, the DA must do everything in his power to get an indictment. Using the grand jury as a trial jury and acting like a defense attorney shouldn't have ever been considered...

Tee Hee. Look who you have defending you Tat.

Call it Crazy says

The prosecutor decided to pass the decision on to the GJ. It's his duty to also pass ALL the evidence collected on to the GJ, not pick and choose only the evidence that supports an indictment.

This was badly mishandled.

Normally a Grand Jury does not have witnesses testifying, and reams of evidence. They determine if there is a reasonable case for going to court. The overwhelming majority of Grand Juries send the cases along, where the court can weigh all that "reasonable doubt" business and whatnot.

That is unquestionably what should have happened here. It is highly likely he would have gotten "not guilty" but society and justice would have been better served. Instead it reeks of hamhanded attempt to shove all this under the rug and hope everyone will just forget about it.

The real argument should be about why so many witnesses were caught lying. Why so many protestors don't care about evidence and don't feel any dissonance when they learn that their assumptions were wrong.

In any case, I expect cop-cams to be a double-edged sword. Rather than just 'keeping cops clean', these videos of questionable police-actions may very well just give the majority of Americans who never grew up in the ghetto a glimpse of how little respect some people have for the rule of law.

Where I grew up in Texas as a white kid, it wouldn't have mattered at all what race the cop was, if we responded with anything but "yes, sir" or "no, sir" to an officer, the conversation would have ended badly and swiftly.

Having since lived at 124th Street and Broadway near Harlem in Manhattan in the years before Julianni, I am no longer shocked by every other word in supposedly polite conversations (and in the presence of children) being "motherf----r". Even there however, no one spoke like that near a police officer, let alone AT a police officer.

We are headed for a total disrespect for the rule of law - from the poorest to the president. Race is just an excuse.

Vicente says

Normally a Grand Jury does not have witnesses testifying, and reams of evidence. They determine if there is a reasonable case for going to court. The overwhelming majority of Grand Juries send the cases along, where the court can weigh all that "reasonable doubt" business and whatnot.

That is unquestionably what should have happened here. It is highly likely he would have gotten "not guilty" but society and justice would have been better served. Instead it reeks of hamhanded attempt to shove all this under the rug and hope everyone will just forget about it.

Not true at all. Although grand juries are an peculiar american anachronism (I believe the US is the only country still using them) investigations are very much a grand jury function. It is not common to do so, but it's not that unusual either. A grand jury having witnesses testifying is perfectly normal and very common. Pretty much routine. That's a big part of determining whether to indict or not.

I don't see where a grand jury was shoving anything under the rug. Grand juries aren't required in MO, but most felonies are brought before one and almost all cases involving charges against police.Some prosecutors present all the evidence, some don't. This was a sitting grand jury already empanelled when the case came up. Letting the grand jury investigate was different but there nothing else out of the ordinary except the intense level of scrutiny.

bob2356 says

Some prosecutors present all the evidence, some don't

I've never heard of a prosecutor presenting evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Does that really occur?

dodgerfanjohn says

Tee Hee. Look who you have defending you Tat.

Uh-have you noticed who has taken up your cause?

it just seems that way. the percentage of defective bots remains the same.
However, with massive population growth, the number of incidents has risen in kind, feeding the MSM with it's source of nonstop entertainment.

deepcgi says

We are headed for a total disrespect for the rule of law - from the poorest to the president. Race is just an excuse.

bob2356 says

but most felonies are brought before one and almost all cases involving charges against police.

Totally wrong. A pretrial hearing is a very different beast. About half the states don't use grand juries at all (anymore). If it's a federal charge yes.

You should read the opinion of Scalia on this grand jury. And this SP public defender article as well.

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

You'll not that CIC and dodgerfan and other defenders of what happened seem to be afraid to read this stuff (or at least explain what's wrong with these opinions, because they are so closed minded.

marcus says

Totally wrong. A pretrial hearing is a very different beast. About half the states don't use grand juries at all (anymore). If it's a federal charge yes.

I know very well what a pre trial hearing is and what scalia said. I'm sure the a public defender in SF has no bias. Neither does captain shutup, or at least he says he doesn't.

I was talking about missouri. Last I checked ferguson was there. Note I called grand juries an anachronism and said the US is the last country to use one. You are reading a bunch of shit in that just isn't there. Panties in a wad?

bob2356 says

said the US is the last country to use one

From this statement it was not clear that you know that half of the US states don't use them at all.

You seem to be implying that I should have known from this that you knew that.

Can't help you with that.

bob2356 says

Panties in a wad?

This to me is more or less proof that you didn't know that half the states didn't use them. "oh, ahhhh, I was talking about Missouri,...obviously." Look, I was simply disagreeing with you and pointing you to where you might go to get better informed.

Kettle calling the Pot black ?

bob2356 says

I'm sure the a public defender in SF has no bias.

I don't know about bias, but they did provide an excruciatingly detailed argument.

So what does "referencing" mean in this context? Maybe the law was referenced as something that is out of date and no longer applicable.
O'Dickhead never explains this further, instead going on to rant how this changed the entire legitimacy of the proceedings.
How it was referenced makes all the difference.
Link the letter so it can be judged correctly.

In her arguments, Kathy Alizadeh handed members of the Ferguson grand jury a letter referencing an outdated and overturned law.

PCGyver says

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2014/11/29/msnbc-host-goes-off-over-prosecutors-huge-verdict-altering-mistake-in-darren-wilsons-case/

MSNBC Host goes off over prosecutor’s huge, verdict-altering mistake In Darren Wilson’s Case.

looks like the prosecutors did do everything in there power to make sure Darren Wilson got the no bill. Including handing the jury an old law that was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago.

What is this mysterious letter? Is it a form letter given to GJs to instruct them on the law?
Is the reference in question a reminder to the GJs that it is no longer valid, in case they are not aware of the change?
All sorts of possibilities.
Which can easily be cleared up by publishing the letter.
Which O'DimBulb did not clarify.

PCGyver says

SoftShell says

So what does "referencing" mean in this context? Maybe the law was referenced as something that is out of date and no longer applicable

And why would you do that? If it is not law then why would you reference it unless you are trying to confuse the GJ

The premise of this entire thread is wrong.

"Ferguson: case closed!" ?????

BZzzzt wrong!

If Wilson had gone to trial, and come up not guilty he'd be free of future prosecution under double jeopardy. Since it didn't go to trial, it could still go to criminal court.

forget the wrong copy versus the right one....i can't keep track of the line by line grammatical timebomb she shit out....

marcus says

This to me is more or less proof that you didn't know that half the states didn't use them. "oh, ahhhh, I was talking about Missouri,...obviously." Look, I was simply disagreeing with you and pointing you to where you might go to get better informed.

Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over. I specifically said in MO if you had read the first part of the sentence, as in MO is one of the states that uses grand juries. Pointing out where someone could be better informed isn't usually prefeced with the words totally wrong where I come from.

bob2356 says

Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over

I saw the reference to Missouri.

IT was actually the entire previous paragraph that led me to believe you thought grand juries are more prevalent than they are.

bob2356 says

Not true at all. Although grand juries are an peculiar american anachronism (I believe the US is the only country still using them) investigations are very much a grand jury function. It is not common to do so, but it's not that unusual either. A grand jury having witnesses testifying is perfectly normal and very common. Pretty much routine. That's a big part of determining whether to indict or not.

Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.

I thought that was interesting. Obviously the stats are going to be different when it involves the possible indictment of a cop.

marcus says

Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.

That's very true. Prosecutors are almost always overworked. They plea bargin anything they can. They go to trail only as a last resort most of the time. Rarely would they go to a grand jury without a pretty firm case for indictment. But it happen some times. Ferguson was clearly a case of dumping the hot potato in the grand juries lap.