Darren Wilson grand juror suing prosecutor for botching the case and putting Mike Brown on trial

a reply to: Kali74

I understand your concerns.

This is an age where fame and fortune are to be found in the merest glimpses of limelight, and in which notoriety is almost as valuable.

However, let us say for a moment, that the intentions of this juror are pure, that there are things that happened during that Grand Jury proceeding, which given the circumstances were clearly not above board, let us say for the moment, that whether or not the case was thrown, there was a decidedly more divided situation between the jurors, than was let on by the prosecutor in press releases and so on?

Let us also assume for a moment, that the information that the juror wants to impart to the people of the United States of America, will be of a sort which would be considered vital and well within the public interest. Surely, it would be better to hear the information, and judge for yourself whether it, and indeed, its source is of any merit what so ever? This case has to be one of the most controversial and infamous cases of the last decade, and although I might be foreign to the land in which it played out, even I am VERY interested to hear any information that becomes available about it.

The reason for this is simple. The incident which lead to this jury being summonsed is NOT a matter whose outcome has meaning only for Americans. You see, oppression, and violence being inflicted by authority figures, upon citizens, is a world wide issue. While this matter must be decided by American procedure, the results will have impacts for people all over the world. Most of these will be purely psychological of course, and perhaps that means little to some. I make no judgements about that, since the human experience is different for everyone, and therefore not everyone thinks the same way about such matters.

Justice however, is no respecter of borders, and it cares little for uniforms either. It has only one purpose, the balancing of power away from those who would do ill against their fellow man out of callousness, and toward those who would be the victims of such acts, the better to prevent those acts coming to pass in the future, and to defend the innocent when they do. Justice therefore, must be allowed to take its natural course, and not be sullied by the meddling or dishonest conduct of any individual within its machinery.

This is especially important when a case is bought against an officer of the law, indeed, those are the moments when justice must be applied in the most even, and most precise fashion, for otherwise, how is anyone to learn to respect justice, or law, its idiot cousin? If even those who are sworn to uphold the law, cannot be prosecuted for a crime that they have committed, potentially as a result of a skewed and discreditable case being bought by the prosecution in an effort to fix the result for political reasons, then what hope has ANYONE of a fair trial?

If there is more to know, if there is something fishy about the result of the Grand Jury, if there is anything worth knowing at all about how that proceeding unfolded, then I believe it is in the best interest of every truth seeking person on this planet, to know of it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said and very true. I do very much want to hear what this juror has to say and I wonder what if anything the DOJ can do to encourage a means for him/her to be able to speak. However, as you can see where I had curiosity about motive others had conviction so while this may have systemic implications which hopefully would be good, I would hope for appointing special prosecutors for cases involving cops or other well connected individuals rather than getting rid of the grand jury option, I don't think this will do anything to further the international conversation... sadly.

a reply to: Kali74

I think it will be impossible to tell what the information this juror wishes to impart, will do for the international conversation on this topic, until after it has been released. That is one of the reasons why I believe it ought to be!

i do not think the claim that this is being done for money holds any water.

The penality for such actions is very little.

I think it may even be a misdemenor in this case but i am sure others know more bout that.


eta Reading through your responses it shows a clear attempt by many to come out swinging against this person. It is hard to hide how you really feel. Jurors have done the whole book and movie thing many times and they never seek to gain permission from any court to do so. They just cash the check and pay the small price for selling out.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueBrit



Well said and very true. I do very much want to hear what this juror has to say and I wonder what if anything the DOJ can do to encourage a means for him/her to be able to speak. However, as you can see where I had curiosity about motive others had conviction so while this may have systemic implications which hopefully would be good, I would hope for appointing special prosecutors for cases involving cops or other well connected individuals rather than getting rid of the grand jury option, I don't think this will do anything to further the international conversation... sadly.

Let's remember that the doj has their hands all over this one and they have givin no indication that there were any problems when the decision was givin of no bill. One could assume that this person is either wrong or the doj and state and county all had a hand in this and are happy with the outcome. This person is truely brave.

a reply to: Bedlam
a reply to: Shamrock6

There was another interesting development today related to your posts...

McCulloch, Two Assistants Face Ethics Complaint Over Darren Wilson Grand Jury

St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch and two of his assistants are facing a misconduct complaint for the way they handled the grand jury that investigated former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. 

The complaint was filed Monday with the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel which handles attorney discipline in the state. It accuses McCulloch and assistants Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley of "gross failure to vigorously represent their client - the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, in their capacity as prosecutors." Alizadeh and Whirley were in charge of presenting the Wilson case to the grand jury.

"We would like to send the message that prosecuting attorneys can no longer abuse their power and expect it to be swept under the rug," said Christi Griffin, a former attorney who is the founder and president of the Ethics Project, and one of seven citizens to sign the complaint.

Source

Grand jurors not being allowed to speak is based on state law and not the prosecutors actions.

A grand jury, unlike a trial, only requires a preponderance of the evidence to indict.

A grand jury for Missouri only requires 9 of 12 jurors to indict.

Prosecutors in MO are immune to legal action (if they were not every person they convict could and most likely would file legal actions).

There is no prohibition on what's presented to a grand jury. If he did not allow testimony from those who lied about what happened then one could argue an indictment would have been based on false testimony.

If a person murdered another person the prosecutor could still decline to prosecute.

Federal involvement is based solely on a civil rights violation and if one occurred. A police officer who shoots and kills a person falls under the 4th amendment. The person is technically seized under the 4th.

Personally speaking - based on the events and community reactions providing everything to a grand jury was appropriate.

The juror wanting to speak out could be the result of financial possibilities. Its also possible she was a juror who voted to indict and did not like the insinuation that she supported no indictments.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you know the penality there for a juror in that case to speak out?

Is it common for the prosecution to decide if a witness is telling the truth during one of these cases?

How much pressure is allowed to be put on witnesses when there statments seem to go against others?

The juror wanting to speak out could be the result of financial possibilities. Its also possible she was a juror who voted to indict and did not like the insinuation that she supported no indictments.

Do you find it odd that the only two possibilities you give both point to the juror being in the wrong for citing objections in this case? I do.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Do you know the penality there for a juror in that case to speak out?

RSMo 540.320.1 Grand juror not to disclose evidence--penalty.

Grand juror not to disclose evidence--penalty.

540.320. No grand juror shall disclose any evidence given before the grand jury, nor the name of any witness who appeared before them, except when lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto; nor shall he disclose the fact of any indictment having been found against any person for a felony, not in actual confinement, until the defendant shall have been arrested thereon. Any juror violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

2003 RSMo 558.011 =

(5) For a class A misdemeanor, a term not to exceed one year;

RSMo 540.310.1 - Cannot be compelled to disclose vote.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Is it common for the prosecution to decide if a witness is telling the truth during one of these cases?

Unless the person is outright lying and gets caught its up to grand jurors to weigh how truthful a person is being. In this case some witnesses were caught outright lying when being questioned by the PA.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
How much pressure is allowed to be put on witnesses when there statments seem to go against others?

It depends on the circumstances.

Again in this case witnesses testified and when their testimony did not add up the PA pressed those individuals, only to find out they either were not present when the incident occurred or they repeated information they were told by others.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Do you find it odd that the only two possibilities you give both point to the juror being in the wrong for citing objections in this case? I do.

No because we don't know what her exact objections are. Secondly it was not a unanimous vote so there were people on the grand jury who objected to the outcome.

If a grand jury, where rules of evidence, witnesses and testimony are a lesser standard than a court proceeding, failed to indict then one could argue that had this gone to court it would never have made it past the preliminary hearing stage. The first hearing is whether or not there is enough evidence to support the charge.

If new and compelling evidence arises the PA can always re-file the charges using the new evidence.


References:
* - RSMo Chapter 538 -Grand Juries and Their Proceedings

a reply to: Xcathdra

So you assume that if this juror was after money then a small misdemenor would stop her from signing a book deal. This has been done plenty and is expected in most high profile cases. So we can logically assume this person is real in their feelings about the proceedings more so than we can assume this is about money.

Your statments about the witnesses is indeed false by everything i have ever understood about these types of proceedings. The truth is that no amount of pressure should be applied to any witness beyond simply advising them of penalities of giving statments that they know are false. Those penalities do not cover when a person is wrong but believes they are right.

All that is for the trial and with no irrifutable evidence such as a clear video to disprove a witness 100% the prosecuters job then is to go to trial and find the truth. Second guessing witnesses and comparing there statments to other witness statments during that proceeding was unlawful and that and many other aspects went far beyond the normal scope of that type of hearing.

Multiple witnesses stating two different versions of the event is exactly what is needed to return a true bill and when the prosecuter decided to dismiss statments based on other witness statments when the physical evidence supported both versions is a clear violation of morality and laws.

A video of the event is the only acceptable evidence that could have been legally used to release any witness testimony in this case. I say that because the physical evidense supports both accounts.

the only ones responsible are the ones involved in the case and please don't let my post give the impression that i feel any different than that. thank you for the info and links.

to finding justice

Much more info here with video.