Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Nixon should have appointed a special prosecutor like Scott did in Florida for
Zimmerman trial. Instead of taking case to Grand Jury filed charges first then
brought case to trial ending in a fair satisfactory outcome for all.

Songbird · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I'm surprised Zimmerman hasn't been killed yet. Thought he'd be die an ugly death under the cloak of darkness.

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

qtlaw said:

LongTimeListener said:

YankeeFan said:

LongTimeListener said:

The National Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of African-American lawyers, sounded off on the prosecutor not doing his job.

“When you think about a grand jury process, that process is not a jury trial. It is an audience for — similar to the preliminary hearing before the judge, is an audience for the prosecutor to present a case that says ‘we believe is worthy of indictment, here’s the evidence that proves that.’ And it’s a solid airtight case because the evidence is really controlled by the prosecutor. That’s not to say that the grand jury can’t ask for witnesses or ask questions, but typically the prosecutor controls the process. Typically a defendant doesn’t testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor’s main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn’t be bringing it before the grand jury.”

I can see how you would have missed it, though, because it wasn't the black-on-black rhetoric that white folks love so much.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a defendant in a grand jury investigation. The Bar Association should know that.

And, while the laws of various states may vary, the subject of a grand jury investigation generally as the right to appear in front of the grand jury.

There's certainly no indication in this statement that the Bar thinks it's a good case, that would/could/may have led to a conviction.

As for the idea that the prosecutor "could have gotten an indictment, if he wanted one," why would he have wanted one given the evidence? If the evidence isn't there, he shouldn't want one.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's how prosecutors work. They don't try to get indictments to put pressure on defendants, for instance to add leverage to a plea bargain. And they don't ever take the "prosecution" side of the prosecutor's case.

Not at all. Prosecutors never try to get indictments on cases that may or may not make good trials. They are only the fairest and most impartial arbiters of justice. Always.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor failed to do his job here; plain and simple. He rigged the presentation so that he could have deniability for not going after Mr. Wilson "see, it was the grand jury, not me!" At the very least, there was probable cause. How else to interpret a shot to the top of a head of an unarmed person?
Click to expand...

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Al Sharpton has a selective memory. He made a name for himself in the
famous Howard Beach case. The prosecutor in that case-- Charles Hynes chose
to take the case to Grand Jury first to get indictments which lead to successful
convictions in jury trial.

Baron Scicluna · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Boom_70 said:

poindexter said:

Boom_70 said:

Forget the decision, I'm more puzzled now by the poor planning last week to prevent
the looting in Ferguson. I mean they had months to have a rock solid plan for
what preventative measures would be put in place.

When the decision was coming down that place should have been crawling with National Guard.
Click to expand...

Nah, the powers that be allow a grace period of free looting and rioting. This is out of the '92 LA riots playbook (pictured here).

Click to expand...

The Flat Screen has made looting a hell of a lot easier nowadays. Those big box
TVs required 2 looters at a time.
Click to expand...

Look at all of those employees just eager to get to work during such a dangerous time.

RickStain · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury goes back to 1166 and the Assze of Clarendon. It works as a check against an authoritarian executive who wishes to charge individual with crimes on his word only. It also works as a check against knee-jerk populists who wish to charge someone with a crime because it suits their interests.
Don't like the system? Change it. The system worked in St Louis

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

Rick you've been killin it on this thread but I don't understand your point here. How did McCulloch play both rolls?

The Big Ragu · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

heyabbott said:

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury goes back to 1166 and the Assze of Clarendon. It works as a check against an authoritarian executive who wishes to charge individual with crimes on his word only. It also works as a check against knee-jerk populists who wish to charge someone with a crime because it suits their interests.
Don't like the system? Change it. The system worked in St Louis
Click to expand...

1) Yes, grand juries go back that far. So do doctors who cured everything with leeches.
2) We already have checks on an executive -- that is why we have a separate and distinct justice system that itself acts as the check.
3) Grand juries were meant to act as an investigative arm -- helping prosecutors gather evidence, and then with that evidence in hand to get indictments.
4) In so much as you could call a grand jury a "check" of any sort -- against malicious prosecutions, for example -- in practice, they have acted as anything but. 99 percent of the time, they are a de facto rubber stamp. That is BECAUSE the prosecutor runs the show in a grand jury. If you are a proponent of the 1166 version, grand juries would be independent -- with no professional prosecutor leading it around to get the outcome he or she wants. Give me that grand jury and see if something as charged as what happened in Ferguson doesn't lead to an indictment.
5) Many states abolished grand juries at the end of the 19th Century. And really, the US is the only country left that uses grand juries. It is antiquated and serves no good purpose. Most people who serve on one don't know the law, so the prosecutor leads them to wherever he wants to get to -- particularly when you are talking about where they are used, at the Federal level involving complex criminal laws such as RICO statutes that even the lawyers don't understand. Nearly all the time, the grand jury simply does what the prosecutor recommends. Which is why so many jurisdictions have gotten rid of them. Why not let the professional prosecutor investigate and indict without the show of a grand jury, since you are going to get the same outcome we already get with the waste of time of a grand jury?

RickStain · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Boom_70 said:

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

Rick you've been killin it on this thread but I don't understand your point here. How did McCulloch play both rolls?
Click to expand...

He aggressively cross-examined witnesses that should have been friendly to his case while acting friendly toward the testimony of witnesses for the defense. He chose to present evidence contrary to his theoretical interests. His assistant PA advised the jury of the law incorrectly (giving them a 1979 Missouri statute on use of force that had been invalidated by the Supreme Court), and then when a jury member questioned if it was accurate, said "just don't worry about it."

If anyone gets into any trouble, it's going to be that last one. Knowingly or even mistakenly arguing bad law in front of a grand jury can get you into some serious crap.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott said:

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury goes back to 1166 and the Assze of Clarendon. It works as a check against an authoritarian executive who wishes to charge individual with crimes on his word only. It also works as a check against knee-jerk populists who wish to charge someone with a crime because it suits their interests.
Don't like the system? Change it. The system worked in St Louis
Click to expand...

1) Yes, grand juries go back that far. So do doctors who cured everything with leeches.
2) We already have checks on an executive -- that is why we have a separate and distinct justice system that itself acts as the check.
3) Grand juries were meant to act as an investigative arm -- helping prosecutors gather evidence, and then with that evidence in hand to get indictments.
4) In so much as you could call a grand jury a "check" of any sort -- against malicious prosecutions, for example -- in practice, they have acted as anything but. 99 percent of the time, they are a de facto rubber stamp. That is BECAUSE the prosecutor runs the show in a grand jury. If you are a proponent of the 1166 version, grand juries would be independent -- with no professional prosecutor leading it around to get the outcome he or she wants. Give me that grand jury and see if something as charged as what happened in Ferguson doesn't lead to an indictment.
5) Many states abolished grand juries at the end of the 19th Century. And really, the US is the only country left that uses grand juries. It is antiquated and serves no good purpose. Most people who serve on one don't know the law, so the prosecutor leads them to wherever he wants to get to -- particularly when you are talking about where they are used, at the Federal level involving complex criminal laws such as RICO statutes that even the lawyers don't understand. Nearly all the time, the grand jury simply does what the prosecutor recommends. Which is why so many jurisdictions have gotten rid of them. Why not let the professional prosecutor investigate and indict without the show of a grand jury, since you are going to get the same outcome we already get with the waste of time of a grand jury?
Click to expand...

Ragu - You must remember Howard Beach. Charles Hynes made a name for himself as Special Prosecutor when he took the case to grand jury first to get indictments. One of the first cases I might add when the country learned of Al Sharpton.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

RickStain said:

Boom_70 said:

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

Rick you've been killin it on this thread but I don't understand your point here. How did McCulloch play both rolls?
Click to expand...

He aggressively cross-examined witnesses that should have been friendly to his case while acting friendly toward the testimony of witnesses for the defense. He chose to present evidence contrary to his theoretical interests. His assistant PA advised the jury of the law incorrectly (giving them a 1979 Missouri statute on use of force that had been invalidated by the Supreme Court), and then when a jury member questioned if it was accurate, said "just don't worry about it."

If anyone gets into any trouble, it's going to be that last one. Knowingly or even mistakenly arguing bad law in front of a grand jury can get you into some serious crap.
Click to expand...

Not doubting you because you seem so well versed on this case but how are you aware of McCulloch's tone towards witnesses?

Are Grand Jury panel members also allowed to cross examine witnesses or just the prosecutor?

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Songbird Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Songbird Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches