National Bar Association Lawyers Release Statement Indicating Ferguson Prosecutor Corruption

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

Ignore what totally? The entire law or the part that's unconstitutional?

The entire law. Her statement is quite clear. The law is unconstitutional as written.

but according to 16 out of the 21 that saw the fatal shots... he had his hands up.

What does the physical evidence say? Which is more reliable?

It's not clear because she also told them to fold the paper with the law on it, in half.

The physical evidence as in the autopsy reports, shows that Micheal Brown had gun shot entry wounds to the inside of his right arm (all the shots were up the right), there's only so many ways that happens... sixteen people said he had his hands up and that's one way he could get those injuries.

a reply to: Kali74

sixteen people said he had his hands up and that's one way he could get those injuries.

Now, compare the other factors in those sixteen peoples versions of the events. How consistent are they? Now think about the TV and internet coverage of the event before the witnesses statements were taken. Do you think any of the witnesses memories may have been affected by what others had said? It's been known to happen. Now, think about what "hands up" could mean? Over his head? Chest high? When did he raise his hands? How many of those witnesses also said that Brown had been shot in the back? What did the physical evidence say about that? Gets sort of confusing, what do you believe about who said what?

Now think about what Wilson has been experiencing for the past few minutes. Do you think that he had no reason to think that Brown posed any threat as he (Brown) advanced toward him. Think about how you would feel about someone who had just tried to take your weapon walking (running?) toward you. Would you think they were surrendering. I know it's hard to put yourself in a position like that. Are you going to second guess Wilson? Are you going to second guess the grand jury who actually heard the testimony, who saw the witnesses' demeanor, who saw the physical evidence? Who decided which witnesses were credible? Do you think that they were all equally credible? How can that be when the testimony varies so much?

a reply to: Phage

The witnesses were interviewed the day of or the day after, how many were interviewed the day after, I have no idea but witnesses are informed that they face criminal charges if they lie in statements or testimony. Personally I wouldn't lie to make a cop look bad no matter how much I hate cops and certainly not at that risk. By day two not one of those witnesses couldn't know this was going to be a high profile case raising the risk of getting caught lying a lot higher.

To be quite honest, the only time I could act in defense where lives were in danger, would be for people close to me. For myself personally, I think I'd rather die than potentially take a life (never had to defend my life so I can't say for sure) even though my fight or flight response is fight I don't carry deadly weapons, I could never be a cop or a soldier and I'm anti-authoritarian on top of that.

I second guess Wilson because he was on a force that had to disband because of rampant racism, his now wife is allegedly in the Klan... and I can't ignore the history of justice regarding black people, especially not in the South. Cops everywhere, even outside the US seem to me to be getting more and more abusive, I know all cops aren't bad and romantically I'd like to believe they're all hero's. Corrupt District Attorney's offices are also rampant. There's no way for me to not take all that into account.

If I were a juror though, I'd have to ignore all but the law and the evidence and in my opinion there was more than enough evidence to indict.

a reply to: Kali74

I have no idea but witnesses are informed that they face criminal charges if they lie in statements or testimony.

Who said anything about lying?

If I were a juror though, I'd have to ignore all but the law and the evidence and in my opinion there was more than enough evidence to indict.

The jury disagreed. And they know more about the evidence than either of us do.

a reply to: Phage

But they also weren't presented the case in a manner that sought prosecution like they should have been.

a reply to: Kali74

But they also weren't presented the case in a manner that sought prosecution like they should have been.

Pardon me? It is the function of a grand jury to seek prosecution? That's a new one on me.

Are you saying that exculpatory evidence should have been withheld from them?

a reply to: Phage

It is the grand jury's job to decide whether prosecution will happen. It is the prosecutors jobs (The DA and the ADA's) to seek prosecution.

a reply to: Kali74

It is the prosecutors jobs (The DA and the ADA's) to seek prosecution.

No. It is the prosecutor's job to prosecute an accused criminal at trial.

Before trial it their job to present evidence to either a judge or a grand jury to determine if there should be a trial.

a reply to: Phage

And usually they present evidence to support their inclination that a person has committed a crime or else why convene a grand jury at all? And in this case the DA shouldn't have bothered at all because he clearly didn't want Wilson prosecuted, that was obvious from his first statement. Instead he put on a grand show on the taxpayers dime.

This is a complicated takeaway for all sides. If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week.

SCOTUS Blog

a reply to: Kali74

And usually they present evidence to support their inclination that a person has committed a crime or else why convene a grand jury at all?

Because a man was shot dead. There may have been a crime committed. The grand jury decided, based on the evidence presented to them, which was all of the evidence available, that no crime had been committed.

Would you rather the DA had withheld evidence from the jury? Do you favor a presumption of guilt in the legal system?

a reply to: Phage

I prefer all evidence however the prosecution need not have acted as defense and in my opinion that's what happened and I'm clearly not imagining it as many legal analysts are finding the same thing.

a reply to: Kali74
Yes. Many are expressing that opinion and others are expressing other opinions. You see that a lot in every high profile case. But at this point there is only one opinion that makes any difference. That of the jury.

a reply to: Phage

Well obviously my opinion doesn't count in any meaningful way, I obviously can't change what the grand jury decided. I can however state that I think they were wrong and why (the system as implemented in Ferguson/Missouri is rotten). There are others though with opinions that do matter however improbable that they act on them.

a reply to: Kali74

There are others though with opinions that do matter however improbable that they act on them.

There was a certain amount of acting on them that night.

a reply to: Phage

It's 3am can you indulge me?

Pfft typical male

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

Ignore what totally? The entire law or the part that's unconstitutional?

The entire law. Her statement is quite clear. The law is unconstitutional as written.

but according to 16 out of the 21 that saw the fatal shots... he had his hands up.

What does the physical evidence say? Which is more reliable?

ok .. not sure why you're going with physical evidence but, so be it, although I've served on a GJ and witnesses that testify before a GJ and be prosecuted for perjury, if my memory servers me correctly; with that being said..

if witness statements dont' have ANY weight whatsoever, then why have them?? hmm?

Correct me if i'm wrong but if this scenario was your close relative and you were standing far enough out of harms way, but close enough to visibly see your relative surrender and put his hands up .. and turn around to face DW, and that officer shoots your relative before your very eyes; it goes to trial and DW gets off because the physical evidence didn't show that officer was in the wrong.

How would you feel about this? Do you think this would be ok .. even though you saw DW shoot a surrendering citizen?

a reply to: Komodo

You miss the point. Witnesses are not infallible. Witness statements are not gospel in an investigation. They often conflict. They're sometimes made up entirely. So when a witness says "yep dude was on his knees with his hands up and the cop executed him" and then changes his story once, twice, three times, no his story doesn't have a ton of credibility anymore. Especially if the physical evidence doesn't match the initial statement at all, but the statement changes to match the evidence.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

too many things do not add up like how they processed 5000 pgs of information in under 70 hrs including meals and what not.

It is amazing how something that took a few minutes generated 5000 pages. I would bet that a lot of those pages could be quickly put aside and they could get to the meat of it all with witnesses and forensic evidence etc.

The grand jury was composed of 12 people "selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens," according to Missouri law. The jurors, whose identities were kept secret, were 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white, but about two-thirds of Ferguson's residents are black. Brown was black. The officer is white.

originally posted by: Komodo
How would you feel about this? Do you think this would be ok .. even though you saw DW shoot a surrendering citizen?

Wouldn't bullet holes in the person's back support your statement? In the case with Brown the bullet holes did not support eye witness statements and those same eye witnesses changed their stories.

originally posted by: Phage
Because a man was shot dead. There may have been a crime committed. The grand jury decided, based on the evidence presented to them, which was all of the evidence available, that no crime had been committed.

Would you rather the DA had withheld evidence from the jury? Do you favor a presumption of guilt in the legal system?

You are fitting a description to what happened that is not accurate, here.

Per the jurisdiction, 9 of the 12 jurors were required to indict Wilson. This did not happen, so 8 or fewer jurors felt there was cause to indict on each charge.

There is also the matter of the prosecutors not presenting certain details. For example, there was an audio recording that documents 10 of the 12 shots fired by Wilson at Brown.