Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

YankeeFan · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

SnarkShark said:

He brought it to a grand jury to make it look like he was doing his due diligence and to take himself off the hook. "Look, I did what I was supposed to do. It's not my fault the grand jury didn't indict." Maybe he didn't think the grand jury testimony would be released. I don't know. But it's clear he didn't try to get an indictment, which is out of the ordinary in 99% of these proceedings.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor is the one who insisted it be released, and did indeed release it the same evening he made his announcement.

This is very rare.

At first, he said he was going to ask the judge to release it, but then withdrew that request, because he said that he had the right to do it, as it was a "closed case".

He said that he thought that Missouri's "sunshine laws" could be used to compel the testimony to be released, but he did not wait for any lawsuits, or Freedom of Information requests. He just released it.

So, yeah, I think he suspected it might be released.

RickStain · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

YankeeFan said:

Here's one former LA prosecutor who says you have to give the target the opportunity to testify:
Click to expand...

There is no federal requirement. States may have different rules. I don't believe Missouri does, but I'm open to be corrected

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

doctorquant said:

Almost no defendants testify because they're not allowed counsel. But they don't have a right.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. No counsel can accompany a witness into the grand jury room. But, a witness may leave the Grand Jury room to consult with an attorney outside of the room and then come back into the Grand Jury and testify. I witness can take the 5th in a Grand Jury. In Maryland. Im not sure about the Feds and each state can be different

I have seen defense counsel request that their clients testify before the Grand Jury. In the right instance it would be advisable. If Wilson was indicted, his testimony before the Grand Jury would have been a horrible move.

YankeeFan · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

cranberry said:

Michael c. McCarthy? This may be an appeal to a fellow wing nut but certainly not a reputable authority.
Click to expand...

Andrew C., and he prosecuted the Blind Sheik, who still rots in jail.

YankeeFan · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

RickStain said:

YankeeFan said:

Here's one former LA prosecutor who says you have to give the target the opportunity to testify:
Click to expand...

There is no federal requirement. States may have different rules. I don't believe Missouri does, but I'm open to be corrected
Click to expand...

Right. And, since he did appear, I'm guessing he's at the very least allowed to appear -- as opposed to not being allowed to appear.

I don't know for sure if he has an absolute right to appear, but it looks like that's the case in at least some states.

old_tony · Dec 15, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

YankeeFan said:

Mr. Sunshine said:

The answer is to just decriminalize assault. If people know they can attack without repercussions, then I'm sure they wouldn't hurt anyone too bad.

That way, if a person is attacked -- especially a cop -- he/she can just take the deserved beating, knowing that an individual is just exercising his right to blow off a little steam, and we'll all be better for it as a society.

If we are willing to let criminals release their frustrations more often, then maybe we'll start to understand they're just like us and they will feel more accepted.

Someday, someday.
Click to expand...

We should all learn to be happy victims like this guy:

Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down.

And yet, when a reporter asked whether I was surprised that this happened in Georgetown, I immediately answered: “Not at all.” It was so clear to me that we live in the most privileged neighborhood within a city that has historically been, and continues to be, harshly unequal. While we aren’t often confronted by this stark reality west of Rock Creek Park, the economic inequality is very real.

Year after year, Washington, D.C., is ranked among the most unequal cities in the country, with the wealthiest 5 percent earning an estimated 54 times more than the poorest 20 percent. According to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, just under 20 percent of D.C. residents live below the poverty line.

What has been most startling to me, even more so than the incident itself, have been the reactions I’ve gotten. I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.

Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.

http://www.thehoya.com/i-was-mugged-and-i-understand-why/
Click to expand...

The writer of this piece is the guy who became known as "Pajama Boy" for posing in an Obamacare ad. A stupid hipster inside and out.

YankeeFan · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

old_tony said:

The writer of this piece is the guy who became known as "Pajama Boy" for posing in an Obamacare ad. A stupid hipster inside and out.
Click to expand...

Seriously? It's the same guy, or are you making a joke?

old_tony · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

YankeeFan said:

old_tony said:

The writer of this piece is the guy who became known as "Pajama Boy" for posing in an Obamacare ad. A stupid hipster inside and out.
Click to expand...

Seriously? It's the same guy, or are you making a joke?
Click to expand...

http://bit.ly/1tKdhbj

franticscribe · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

YankeeFan said:

Here's one former LA prosecutor who says you have to give the target the opportunity to testify:

Tony: I’m an officer of the court. I was a DA for 22 years in L.A. I’ve been in private practice, criminal defense for the last seven years. In California, you by law have to notify the target of the investigation of the hearing, and give him the order, or the option that he testify. So I don’t know what this guy is talking about.
Click to expand...

Here's a prosecutor who says she has to present the negatove aspects of her case to the grand jury:

Lynn: I’ve been a prosecutor for over 22 years. I have handled well over two dozen homicide cases and taken seven to verdict. Mr. Alter could not be more wrong about several things. First of all, the idea that prosecutors go into a grand jury and we always ask for an indictment, that’s completely incorrect. The only time we ask for an indictment is when we personally have an abiding conviction that we believe there’s enough evidence to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We routinely will go in with a grand jury and not give them particularly a request for a particular charge. We will present to them all the evidence, both the good and the bad, which by the way we have a moral and legal obligation to present all the negative aspects of our case, not just the positive. That’s why they…both the bad and the ugly, because they have a moral obligation
Click to expand...

She says it's rare that a target testifies, either because the target does not now about the proceedings, or because they choose not to. Neither of those circumstances are in play here. Wilson knew he was a target, and had a right to appear:

HH: I’ll keep them going. But let’s go back and forth with questions. Lynne, my question is how often do defense counsel allow their clients to appear in front of grand juries?

Lynne: Okay, there’s two aspects to that answer. And the first aspect is very rarely does the defense know that a grand jury is being convened for an indictment, because typically, grand juries are being done in cases where it’s secret testimony. It’s something where perhaps you’ve got Mexican drug cartels involved, and it’s pretty, and witnesses put the witnesses in danger. So it’s typically a secret proceeding. The second question, the defense attorney knows that we are going before the grand jury, it is exceedingly rare. I would bet my house that 99.9% of the time, the defense attorney is never going to proffer their defendant to come in and testify. I’ve taken to jury trial over 200 jury trials. I can tell you the number of times that a criminal defendant has gone up and testified in a jury trial is probably less than 10% of all those jury trials. The vast majority of the time, they don’t do it. And they’re not going to do it at the grand jury level, because that is, that’s the least strenuous, it’s the time that the prosecutor has the most ability to do what they want to do in the courtroom.

JA: Right.

Lynne: So they’re not going to do it. It leaves the client way, way, way too open for exposure.

JA: Right.
Click to expand...

More on the fact that the prosecutor has to bring forth evidence that is beneficial to the target:

HH: Your turn, Jonathan.

JA: No, we all agree on that. But let me ask you this, Lynne: So the trial, if I’m not mistaken, is the proper place to weigh the conflicting evidence.

Lynne: That’s completely wrong.

JA: That’s what a trial is for. Is that right?

Lynne: Completely false. And a grand jury, it’s totally different than a preliminary hearing. At a grand jury, I am obligated by law to bring in the evidence that’s beneficial to the defendant. If I don’t do that, I would be fired, I would be rightly accused of misconduct. The appellate courts would find me in…

JA: You’re talking about at a hearing? Or you’re talking about in cases where you’re recommending an indictment and will get an indictment…

Lynne: Absolutely.

JA: You are bringing, you are digging deep and finding anything that could possibly be exculpatory for the defendant?

Lynne: Absolutely. We are obligated by law to bring in anything that’s exculpatory to the defendant. But our primary goal is to see that the right thing is done.
Click to expand...

And finally, why the percentage of cases that go before a grand jury and don't lead to an indictment is low, but why it's not surprising in this case, which is very different than the norm:

JA: I’m just wondering, Lynne, in what percentage of cases that you bring before the grand jury, and recommend indictment, is no indictment offered?

Lynne: What percentage of no indictments?

JA: Yes.

Lynne: Typically, it’s not very probable, because we’re not going to bring an indictment, we’re not going to bring a case before a grand jury typically unless we believe there’s probable cause to actually go forward with a jury trial…

JA: Right.

Lynne: …because we, and let me finish, because we think there’s going to be a conviction. However, there are certainly cases where we as prosecutors do not believe there’s enough evidence to obtain a conviction. However, the community may have a different opinion of the case, and we want to put it in front of the grand jury and let them make the call. That’s when we don’t get an indictment. And that is not the, that’s the more rare event.

HH: Now Lynne, my question is…

JA: Lynne, how rare is that? That’s what we’re discussing. What percentage of cases fall into that category, that latter category that you just described?

Lynne: I would say less than 5%.

JA: Yeah, that’s my point.

HH: Well, that’s my point, too. This is very rare…

JA: Extraordinarily rare. Extraordinarily rare.
Click to expand...

http://www.hughhewitt.com/daily-beasts-jonathan-alter-hugh-prosecutor-callers-debate-ferguson-grand-jury-decision/#
Click to expand...

Unless any of these folks were Missouri prosecutors, their opinions on the grand jury in Ferguson are meaningless. There are so many variances in laws, practices and rules from state to state that it is reckless for former prosecutors from other states to speak about the Missouri grand jury without significant qualifications.

For example, in my state prosecutors are barred from entering the grand jury room. When I worked as a prosecutor, I routinely asked for indictments and my only control was in presenting the GJ with options for charges and the witnesses who would testify. That has little bearing on Ferguson because the system there is so different.

outofplace · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

RickStain said:

0-for-2. I suspect more is coming.
Click to expand...

It's okay, Rick. I knew you weren't honest enough to admit the hypocrisy. Bottom line is you have plenty of company in constantly making assumptions about this case and it has been that way since the very beginning. It is just comical coming from somebody who demands proof when it suits him, then is happy to abandon that burden when it does not.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Rick S owns this thread

RickStain · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

outofplace said:

RickStain said:

0-for-2. I suspect more is coming.
Click to expand...

It's okay, Rick. I knew you weren't honest enough to admit the hypocrisy. Bottom line is you have plenty of company in constantly making assumptions about this case and it has been that way since the very beginning. It is just comical coming from somebody who demands proof when it suits him, then is happy to abandon that burden when it does not.
Click to expand...

And I knew you weren't interested in understanding subtle distinctions.

And I also know *exactly* how much respect I have for your distaste of unfounded accusations, which lasts precisely as long as it gets you into an argument and disappears the moment you feel like taking shots.

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

franticscribe Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

franticscribe Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches