Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

No, but I have a problem indicting anyone just to calm street mobs if probable cause is not established .

Read the article.

That's not how grand juries work.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

Grand juries don't establish probable cause.

Your making my head hurt.

It is the responsibility of the grand jury
to weigh the evidence presented to it in
order to determine whether this
evidence, usually without any
explanation being offered by the
accused, persuades it that there is
probable cause to believe that a crime
has been committed and that the
accused was the person who committed
it. Remember that the grand jury is not
responsible for determining whether the
accused is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, but only whether there is
sufficient evidence of probable cause to
justify bringing the accused to trial.
Only the evidence presented to the
grand jury in the grand jury room may
be considered in determining whether
to vote an indictment.

Source:

The Federal Handbook for Grand Juries

Maybe you should ask for a tuition refund from you law school.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

That's not how grand juries work.

I believe that is exactly why the DA brought this case to the grand jury. The biggest criticism of this grand jury is that this case was even brought to them.

Paul G. Cassell, professor of criminal law, criminal procedure, and crime victims' rights at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and past U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah from 2002 to 2007, says that the Ferguson grand jury process was fair. Take your argument up with him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...cess-was-fair/

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It is the responsibility of the grand jury
to weigh the evidence presented to it in
order to determine whether this
evidence, usually without any
explanation being offered by the
accused, persuades it that there is
probable cause to believe that a crime
has been committed and that the
accused was the person who committed
it. Remember that the grand jury is not
responsible for determining whether the
accused is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, but only whether there is
sufficient evidence of probable cause to
justify bringing the accused to trial.
Only the evidence presented to the
grand jury in the grand jury room may
be considered in determining whether
to vote an indictment.

Source:

The Federal Handbook for Grand Juries

Maybe you should ask for a tuition refund from you law school.

Nah - My brain turned to "probable cause" as referenced in proper search and seizures and defined in the Fourth Amendment. I realized where you were going and changed my post.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

Nah - My brain turned to "probable cause" as referenced in proper search and seizures and defined in the Fourth Amendment. I realized where you were going and changed my post.

Now read the article about the testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury and the piece by the law professor and Federal Judge who said the grand jury process was fair. You may still have grounds to demand a refund of your law school tuition.

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I believe that is exactly why the DA brought this case to the grand jury. The biggest criticism of this grand jury is that this case was even brought to them.

Paul G. Cassell, professor of criminal law, criminal procedure, and crime victims' rights at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and past U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah from 2002 to 2007, says that the Ferguson grand jury process was fair. Take your argument up with him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...cess-was-fair/

The DA brought the case to the grand jury as the completion of his dog and pony show.

And Justice Scalia - one of the dudes on the Supreme Court - happens to agree with me:

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

As do many other legal scholars whose opinions you can find through Google.

On edit: I find the Think Progress headline to be deceptive because it makes it seem as if Justice Scalia spoke specifically about the Michael Brown case. He did not. This is his opinion on the function and purpose of a Grand Jury.

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Now read the article about the testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury and the piece by the law professor and Federal Judge who said the grand jury process was fair. You may still have grounds to demand a refund of your law school tuition.

You have a nasty habit of ordering me around. And btw, Obama was an adjunct law school professor, too. I'm sure you have just as high of an opinion of what he thinks as you do this unknown professor, right?

Justice Scalia agrees with me. Exculpatory evidence and defendants do not belong in a grand jury proceeding.

[sheltiedave]

Zeke, you missed that the NAACP and the ACLU have filed the lawsuit re school board representation in Ferguson. You missed the Missouri state attorney's office filing suit against the thirteen municipalities who derive over 30% of their general operating revenue from tickets, including Ferguson. You missed that voter registration is steadily increasing in north county, and you missed that the Republican county executive candidate lost by less than 1%, in a protest vote campaign. You missed that Wilson resigned in disgrace, and that another eight or nine cops on the FPD are now on probation.

You missed that your tenure in law enforcement made your person and your family life a hellhole, and now you still want to carry that stain on your soul and behaviour as your public face elsewhere.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

The DA brought the case to the grand jury as the completion of his dog and pony show.

And Justice Scalia - one of the dudes on the Supreme Court - happens to agree with me:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

As do many other legal scholars whose opinions you can find through Google.

It seems to me that you're mixing up the right of a suspect to testify before a grand jury with the right of a DA to call him as a witness. As noted in the Federal Jury grand jury instructions linked above:

It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused ...

Unfortunately, there was nothing usual about this case. There was rioting, looting and gunfire in the streets due to the "hands up, don't shoot" meme created by people who didn't see the shooting (read the article) and subsequently also offered up by "witnesses" to the grand jury.

Like it or not, given the evidence in this case, the DA had two choices - not bringing it to the grand jury (as he didn't believe that there was probable cause) or bringing it before the grand jury as he did due to public pressure. I'm guessing you'd be bitching even louder if he did the former rather than the latter.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I never once have contended that police brutality isn't a problem/issue. However, from the beginning I have said that the use of the Michael Brown case to make this point is probably counterproductive.

If we wait on people like you to decide, there will never be a right case.