patrick.net

Wow. I assumed from the result that the prosecutor was on the cops side, but this seems to prove it. No wonder most states don't use grand juries anymore.

I know, I'm likely to hear from some of our village idiots who don't even take the time to learn a little about what a grand jury is.

so lets make 20x more violent rap videos this year, promote violence and lawlessness in Black Youths, then we'll trump up incidents of policing EVEN MORE.

HECK! well make it practically a social death sentence for a young black male NOT to endear violence and criminal behavior. Just keep making these fucking videos! they will fucking WORSHIP sociopathic behavior and they will act it out- then we will blame the whites for protecting themselves against it, creating even MORE TENSIONS.

then America will be destroyed.

Sincerely,

Russia

Other reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/major-contradictions-in-eyewitness-accounts-of-michael-browns-death/383157/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

if that dont work just keep feeding them with DRUGS! and eliminate all business opportunities! destroy their family units!

when they start wondering WTF is going on, BLAME WHITES!

I have no problems debating the issue of the rising police state, police overreach, lack of accountability and loss of civil liberties under the condition that people engaged in such a discussion must not scream "racist!" (the modern-day substitute for nazi in godwin's law) like mindless, programmed, effeminate, self-flagellating drones.

mell says

mindless, programmed, effeminate, self-flagellating drones.

ie. San Franciscans

marcus says

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

I know this guy is a public defender and most definitely not a right winger, but he took the time to do an analysis of the flaws with the grand jury for anyone who cares.

I agree with his bottom line. We need cops to have body cameras. This is the surest way to prevent those cops that are incompetent for whatever reason from getting away with murder as well as lesser injustices done every day in America. It's for their own good really.

Call it Crazy says

OK, let's see about the author:

Author: Valerie Beaumont

..."Valerie is a lifelong progressive activist"

That's the problem, at least KD (despite not being a forensic expert, just an expert gun owner) makes some legitimate points for discussion without bringing race into any of this and without jumping to conclusions. This type of journalists of "progressive writers" are 80% female, know jack shit about anything but think they can pull facts out of their ass and conflate multiple, utterly disjoint issues in emotional junk articles because they have the right gender and a "progressive" affiliation.

marcus says

I agree with his bottom line. We need cops to have body cameras. This is the surest way to prevent those cops that are incompetent for whatever reason from getting away with murder as well as lesser injustices done every day in America. It's for their own good really.

they do have car cameras, and of course, magically all these questionable incidents seem to have disappeared around police cars! imagine that!

now all the supposedly racist incidents only happen in situations far from the cameras.

what does that tell you?

The Original Bankster says

mell says

mindless, programmed, effeminate, self-flagellating drones.

ie. San Franciscans

Yes, quite a few of them. but not all. It can be a balancing act if a lot of your friends fall into that category but I don't unfriend people because of their political affiliations/delusions. I'm socially liberal and financially conservative, but I can't stand bullshit and self-flagellation.

socially liberal - financially conservative

in other words you do whatever the fuck you feel and make sure no one spends YOUR money.

only in California. I hope you all die of AIDS.

to top it all off, you come off as though this viewpoint makes you seem clever and educated, worthy of many likes and retweets all througout the land.

dumb fuck Californians got us into this with your bankrupt utopias you think the whole world has to pay for.

OH and to the OP re. HIDDEN AGENDA.

the AGENDA is obivous- getting Obama's Amnesty bill passed so he can de-job every last African American FOR GOOD. Now they will be permanent Ghetto Monkey/Democrat Voters. See ya Black American Dream!

Good bye, Martin Luther King!

Hello, Snoop Doggy Dogg.

fucking idiots.

Any diamond ring over 950 qualifies...

marcus says

about what a grand jury is.

Call it Crazy says

*

Hmmm... Just as empty and meaningless as their articles...

Nice Job Marcus!!

Its a propaganda machine for those addicted to drugs.

The Original Bankster says

socially liberal - financially conservative

in other words you do whatever the fuck you feel and make sure no one spends YOUR money.

only in California. I hope you all die of AIDS.

Definitions can vary, but I think you don't have the right idea here. It means that I don't care what race, sexual, genderist or religious orientation my peers have as long as they don't push their views onto others by means of either social or financial coercion (laws/taxes, political correctness), and take responsibility for their actions.

marcus says

I agree with his bottom line. We need cops to have body cameras. This is the surest way to prevent those cops that are incompetent for whatever reason from getting away with murder as well as lesser injustices done every day in America. It's for their own good really.

I would like known criminals to wear body cameras. That would really reduce crime.

Thanks, Marcus, for those links.

Yep, a Grand Jury is only there to see if there is enough evidence for the state to prosecute.

McCullough abused that system to avoid having to prosecute Wilson. There was no cross-examination, McCullough bent over backward - something he would never do for any other prosecution - to give Wilson the opportunity to present his side. Quite simply, prosecutors have no duty to present exculpatory evidence. In fact, they are expected not to (anything you say and do can and WILL be used against you - never for you - in a court of law)

Yet McCullough did so for Wilson.

Of course he did. He was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Prosecute, and his career is over. Thug Unions will blacklist him, inform any prosecutor's office not to hire him, and defeat him in any election if he ran. If he lost, he loses a high profile case.

This is why local and state prosecutors cannot be trusted to prosecute their key allies who provide them with grist for their mill, the Police.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

marcus says

I agree with his bottom line. We need cops to have body cameras. This is the surest way to prevent those cops that are incompetent for whatever reason from getting away with murder as well as lesser injustices done every day in America. It's for their own good really.

I would like known criminals to wear body cameras. That would really reduce crime.

That's absolutely fair. If you've been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, you should also wear a body camera. This way when you commit your next crime, there will be duelling cameras by both the felon and cop!

Then we really know what happened.
Ofcourse, Bgamall4 will claim the recording was doctored. Dan will scream "innocent criminals" had their constitutional rights abused. Everyone else will claim racism, especially Sharkton and Jackass.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm... How did McCullough influence the testimony of all the eyewitnesses (and the fact that many changed their story under questioning) and how did he control the questions the jury asked those witnesses?

Did McCullough also tamper with all the forensic evidence too and erase all the bullet holes in Brown's back?

Lets ask Gary.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm... How did McCullough influence the testimony of all the eyewitnesses (and the fact that many changed their story under questioning) and how did he control the questions the jury asked those witnesses?

Why don't you actually read about the various witnesses what their statements have been, then maybe learn what a grand jury is and what it isn't, and then if possible get an IQ upgrade bringing it up 20% to around 95, so that you can actually participate (almost) intelligently in this discussion.

If you read about what happened, you might understand that the "prosecutor" in the grand jury acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor. There is no defense attorney in a grand jury - so apparently the prosecutor plays that role if their goal is to avoid a trial.

That goal can be based on a perceived lack of a case, or it can be based on customs relative to potential cases against police. If you understood this situation, even you might have issues with it. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with race, although who knows on the part of the cop and what he did. Sometimes ignorance and fear come in to play in such cases - not wholly unrelated to race. But in any event, that's irrelevant.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm... How did McCullough influence the testimony of all the eyewitnesses (and the fact that many changed their story under questioning) and how did he control the questions the jury asked those witnesses?

The witnesses were all over the map. Some backed Wilson's, some backed Brown's. Some were half and half - that he ran, that he walked stopped, turned around, his head was up, his head was down, put his hands out, he raised them high, he hardly raised them, he raised them in a "Whoa" type gesture, etc.

Again, McCullough is a prosecutor. It's not his job to present contradictory or exculpatory evidence. It's his job to get the Jury to say "Yes, enough evidence for a prosecution."

McCullough's job was to cherry pick the best evidence to convince the grand jury to okay to prosecution. He didn't do that. He threw everything at them and confused them and bent over backwards by giving Wilson hours to testify, when he introduced contradictory witness statements, including those favorable to Wilson, when he glossed over various police missteps when they arrived at the shooting scene, the out of juice camera battery excuses, etc.

Again, it's not McCullough's job or responsibility or even ethical mandate in the court's eyes to present exculpatory or contradictory evidence. Yet McCullough did so.

Had he restricted himself to evidence beneficial of Wilson's shooting of Brown, the grand jury would been over in hours.

McCullough did the prosecutorial version of "Taking a Dive".

All while rest of the world looks at the "race riots" in the "greatest nation on earth" and just laughs at us as a nation.

Liberals don't even realize how their childishness is ruining everything.

FortWayne says

Liberals don't even realize how their childishness is ruining everything.

This is liberal childishness:
http://thedartmouth.com/2014/11/17/opinion/traynor-fixing-free-speech

Or when the leader of a team than landed the first man-made object on a freakin' COMET gets more SWJ complaints about his Corseted Pinup Girl Shirt in loud collars than compliments. Meanwhile those same SWJs support "Slut Walks".

Apparently, telling women what not to wear is evil, but telling a STEM guy who made a miracle happen for wearing some non-nude cartoonish characters what to wear is A-OK.

Call it Crazy says

Are the 12 people on the jury pre-programmed robots that can't think for themselves? Aren't they able to determine through critical thinking skills (which a few here don't have) what evidence and witness statements make sense?

Not the point. Prosecutor wasn't supposed to present exculpatory evidence, but make the best case FOR prosecuting that he could, like he would do normally in all of the other 99.9999% of cases he ever dealt with.

The fact that he handled this case radically different than others is what is being questioned.

Typically, a grand jury waits for hours, then the prosecution presents a brief synopsis of their best, and only their best, evidence: "We found X on suspect. He confessed to Officer Y. It happened at time Z. Eyewitness A says it happened like B. So did Witness F" and the Grand Jury says "Okay, indictment."

Prosecutors do not usually present to grand juries "We found bubble gum, $6 in one five dollar bill and one single, as well as a makeshift pipe with hashish residue. Eyewitness A says it happened like B, but Eyewitness C says it happened like D while Eyewitness E says it kinda happened like B but also a little like D but she's not sure because she wears glasses. The Bubble Gum was indeterminate, it could have been Bazoka Joe or Trident, the lab report is inconclusive. Officer 1 says it was like 2 but 3 says like 5. They took pictures but were late because the batteries ran out because Officer 4 had just come back from vacation - he went to the Lake, btw, had a wonderful time fishing with the family. Somebody wrote on the dollar bill that if you find this bill, you should go to wheresgeorge.com but we couldn't connect that with wrongdoing relevant to this case".

FortWayne says

All while rest of the world looks at the "race riots" in the "greatest nation on earth" and just laughs at us as a nation.

Liberals don't even realize how their childishness is ruining everything.

The world is laughing at America because some vote for Rep/Con/Teas.

thunderlips11 says

Apparently, telling women what not to wear is evil, but telling a STEM guy who made a miracle happen for wearing some non-nude cartoonish characters what to wear is A-OK.

I don't think humanity will ever make sense.

FortWayne says

Liberals don't even realize how their childishness is ruining everything.

How did liberals ruin everything ? They aren't even slowing down the transition to a police state.

thunderlips11 says

Call it Crazy says

Are the 12 people on the jury pre-programmed robots that can't think for themselves? Aren't they able to determine through critical thinking skills (which a few here don't have) what evidence and witness statements make sense?

Doesn't matter. Prosecutor wasn't supposed to present exculpatory evidence, but make the best case FOR prosecuting that he could, like he would do normally in all of the other 99.9999% of cases he ever dealt with.

The fact that he handled this case radically different than others is what is being questioned.

I would have done the same thing in his place. I would not want to be responsible for rioting or become a target for loonies.

Another one that doesn't take the time to scratch the surface, or even understand the comment he is responding to for that matter.

He believes that ?

marcus says

FortWayne says

Liberals don't even realize how their childishness is ruining everything.

How did liberals ruin everything ? They aren't even slowing down the transition to a police state.

Constant attempts to push the line, liberals aren't even walking the line anymore of what is socially acceptable. They are well over that line.

Race riots, gay parades, gender divisions based on out of control man hating feminism... where do you think need for police state arises from? Liberals are the epicenter of this mess.

Call it Crazy says

and you know that how? Have you sat in and listened to all his other presentations to Grand Juries?

If this prosecutor called a Grand Jury and spent hundreds of hours with each one for every case he had, he'd have been fired a long time ago.

Call it Crazy says

No, it could be FOR or AGAINST, which is why it goes to the Grand Jury in the first place. It's up to the jury to wade through ALL of the evidence and witness statements to see if there is enough to go for an indictment.

Prosecutors have no duty to present exculpatory evidence. This has been Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries. The fact that he did is suspicious to say the least.

From your own link:

Minority Approach: No Duty to Help the Defendant

Prosecutors present evidence of criminal activity in the attempt to convince the grand jury that criminal charges are warranted. In some states and in federal court, they don’t have to present any evidence suggesting that the target is innocent. The rationale is that the defendant will have the opportunity to present this evidence at trial.

For example, if prosecutors are seeking an indictment of Jane for an armed robbery, they might offer evidence of her fingerprints at the crime scene and a suitcase of money found in her car. In some states and in federal court, they wouldn’t have to tell the grand jury that she has an alibi for the robbery.

Majority View: Exculpatory Evidence is a Must

In most states, prosecutors can’t present half-truths to grand juries. If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. That doesn’t mean, however, that they have to offer every piece of evidence that’s helpful to the accused or that might be used at trial by the defense.

For example, evidence that a prosecution witness is a habitual liar would be helpful to the defendant at trial, but it doesn’t directly negate the commission of the crime. Therefore, a prosecutor wouldn’t be required to present it to a grand jury. And even in states where prosecutors have to present evidence of innocence, they don’t have to go looking for it. In the example above, they would have to present Jane’s alibi only if they were aware of it—they wouldn’t have to try to find out whether she had one.

and furthermore:

Even if a prosecutor ignores the duty to offer evidence of innocence, the defendant may be out of luck. That’s because grand jury proceedings are secret, so it’s difficult to know what was or was not presented to the jurors. Courts may release the grand jury records if the defense has made a really strong case as to why the information is necessary, but they don’t often grant these requests. And the defense must bring any motion trying to overturn the indictment before trial; otherwise, the court won’t consider it.

Nowhere does this piece say that Prosecutors must divulge any and all information beneficial to the defendant.

Furthermore, Scalia had this to say about Grand Juries:

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 functionnot ‘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.

...

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/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

So even if this is a state where a prosecutor has to reveal exculpatory evidence that he is aware of, he doesn't have to present all of it and indeed prosecutors are not expected to do so.

This prosecutor went way, way, way way way beyond Pluto out of his way to present exculpatory evidence, and the last paragraph above has it right.

Yes it's all the liberals fault.

I guess I'm guilty of doing the same thing you do. I hate stupidity. And there are A LOT of really stupid "conservatives" (and I use the word loosely to represent today's right wingers). So I tend to think that the stupidity on the right is the sole cause of all of our problems.

But certainly not every stupid person is a right winger, nor is every right winger stupid. But it's closer match up than the connections you suggest:

FortWayne says

Race riots, gay parades, gender divisions based on out of control man hating feminism... where do you think need for police state arises from? Liberals are the epicenter of this mess.

IT's guys like this idiot that help to inform us of what's really going on. Accept I don't think he's a member of the elite that are planning on hiding away in a gated community and neglecting the masses after whites become a minority. He's just too stupid (like captain dimbulb) to realize that that's the outcome he's cheering for.

Alrighty!! Now we're getting somewhere!!
Welcome aboard Marcus! Welcome aboard!!

marcus says

Yes it's all the liberals fault.