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

In an effort to freely speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson grand jury deliberations involving the shooting of Michael Brown, a member of the jury is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he mischaracterized the proceedings after presenting a “muddled” case, reports St. Louis Public Radio.

In a lawsuit (pdf) filed Monday morning, the juror — described as “Grand Juror Doe” –  claims McCulloch’s statements to the press following the announcement of no indictment against Wilson were inaccurate and that the juror would like to address those inaccuracies.

According to the lawsuit, “In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges. Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch announces that the grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson on any of five counts that were presented to it.

Credit Bill Greenblatt | UPI

I have to add that being sworn to secrecy as a grand juror while the prosecutor is out representing the proceedings in a manner not to one's own recollections, would indeed be concerning, if that is the case. This is a very interesting development in a case that has brought many tensions to light.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, contends that the Wilson case, as presented by McCulloch, is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.

“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.

Missouri law prohibits grand jurors from disclosing “any evidence given” or “the name of any witness who appeared before them.” Jurors who do so may be  guilty of a misdemeanor.

The ACLU is asking a judge to grant an injunction that prohibits enforcing, or threatening to enforce, those laws in this case.

McCulloch has been under increasing fire since admitting that he allowed witnesseshe knew were lying to testify before the grand jury.

Source

Source

I see in there something I was getting at in another thread, an information dump! However I didn't take into account that some of the information itself had been redacted, if that has been the case, or the possibility of that information being misconstrued, either because of redactions or in some other way.
It's going to be a while for all this controversy to go away, and I'll bet the Federal investigation will be looking very closely at this.

a reply to: smurfy

That's an interesting point about the information dump by this prosecutor. That very action may also strengthen the First Amendment argument by the juror bringing this suit.

In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

If the prosecutor has been as transparent as he suggests himself to have been in this, why gag the First Amendment rights of the 12 jurors?

I'd be interested in hearing what he/she has to say.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Good. It seemed obvious to me that the prosecutor was biased and did not do his job correctly.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

If the prosecutor has been as transparent as he suggests himself to have been in this, why gag the First Amendment rights of the 12 jurors?

I think that's just standard grand juror policy.

a reply to: Kali74
The policy is standard, but the data dump wasn't, so would that not alleviate much of the need for secrecy in this case?

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

I hope the court grants the grand juror's petition on the condition that he/she cannot profit from the exposure, just in case this is someone hoping to cash in on the experience. I would even allow the person to write a book -- as long as all proceeds are given to charity.

McColloch's response will be interesting. He set the standard by dumping everything but the kitchen sink on the grand jury to sort out themselves, including known false testimony. If he is really promoting transparency (not to mention truth and justice), then he should have no problem with it. If not... well... we'll find out, right?

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Good point, I wonder if that will be considered. As long as names are kept private I think an exception could be made.

I entirely misunderstood what this was about. I thought a grand juror was suing McCulloch for 'throwing' the case and was seeking exception in order to proceed but s/he is just seeking immunity in order to talk about the case publicly. I would be interested to hear the jurors perspective but I am leery of fame/fortune seeking.

"Freely" speak out = get paid to sell their story.

Somebody is financially backing this. There's a lot of money to be made.

a reply to: Kali74

Valid concern. This part of the suit may however suggest a desire by the juror to bring to light how the prosecutor's data dump and no charge recommendation handling in this case needs to be questioned with future grand juries.

Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

From the lawsuit: “Plaintiff’s impression that evidence was presented differently than in other cases, with the insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrongdoer.”

This process has been a concern, especially when police officers with longstanding working relationships with local prosecutors are implicated.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

If the prosecutor has been as transparent as he suggests himself to have been in this, why gag the First Amendment rights of the 12 jurors?

I think that's just standard grand juror policy.

I concur.
I was told not to speak of anything that went on inside the Federal Grand Jury that I served on.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Absolutely agree.

a reply to: butcherguy

Did this happen after your service...

“Doe” is upset that McCulloch continues to speak about the grand jury’s deliberations even though he was not present and they were not recorded by a court reporter.

I'd be very interested in anything you could share about the process, not related to the specific case. Thanks!

Come on it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I thought prosecutors had pretty much absolute immunity. They can refuse to try or intentionally do a ridiculously bad job and face no consequence whatever. Like judges.

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
a reply to: butcherguy

Did this happen after your service...

“Doe” is upset that McCulloch continues to speak about the grand jury’s deliberations even though he was not present and they were not recorded by a court reporter.

I'd be very interested in anything you could share about the process, not related to the specific case. Thanks!

It did not happen in any of the cases that I was involved in.

I was on a federal 'strike force' (that is what they called it) grand jury. It dealt with many cases, but the cases were limited to drug and human trafficking. We handed down quite a few indictments and one case I saw come up in the news later got convictions in human trafficking case.
We had the power to call whatever witnesses we wanted to testify. The prosecutors laid out their cases and had people testify. We were allowed to take notes in the courtroom, but the notes stayed in the room when we left for the day. We were not allowed to have phones, cameras or recording devices in the courtroom.
We were sworn not to divulge any part of testimony or facts in the case outside of the court, and there was no time limit mentioned on that.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yep. There was one case that I know of from the late 1800s (I think, I know it's the way way back drawer) that a prosecutor was forced to proceed with a trial he didn't want to do, so he actually argued FOR the defense and not the prosecution. Explained why all the evidence he had meant the accused couldn't be guilty. And then lost/won the case.

But to be fair that trial was used as an example of a corrupt judge I think, not the prosecutor. In any event, the prosecutor was forced into a trial by somebody "above" him and intentionally lost the case and wasn't reprimanded for it.

Prosecutors are by and large untouchable. Far more so than police are. And no I'm not trying to say cops don't get away with stuff, I'm simply saying that prosecutors get away with even more.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Prosecutors are by and large untouchable. Far more so than police are. And no I'm not trying to say cops don't get away with stuff, I'm simply saying that prosecutors get away with even more.

Nol Pros is great when the prosecutor knows he can't make the case. It's abused when he chooses not to because of political pressure.

That's why I don't trust the prosecutor's office to zealously prosecute cases that will end up getting him in trouble politically. It's just human nature to take the carrot and dodge the stick, especially when stick dodging bears no penalty.

I've had an opportunity to read through the Complaint filed in the lawsuit and noted a few items not discussed in detail in the media coverage linked.

Notably, the Plaintiff (Juror) states:

36. Plaintiff would also like to use Plaintiff’s own experiences to advocate for legislative
change to the way grand juries are conducted in Missouri.
37. Plaintiff’s views would add to the public debate—occurring in Missouri and across the
country—about the proper role of state grand juries and whether they continue to serve their original purpose of protecting the accused, or are now increasingly used to deprive
those accused of crimes of due process to which they are otherwise entitled.
38. In Missouri, proposed House Joint Resolution 17 would repeal the state constitutional
authorization for grand juries.

I was not aware previously of such a resolution.

Also of note is the juror's statement of the Defendant (Prosecutor) giving the appearance of transparency, while not releasing all documents which are required to be disclosed under Missouri's Sunshine Law.

33. From Plaintiff’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides
an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those
records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury.

While not being allowed to speak, this juror's complaint says enough to glimpse that further disclosures may be warranted.