Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

a reply to: Sremmos80

DA's don't get to spin a case during the GJ...do you know what a grand jury is?

a reply to: raymundoko

Yes I do understand it, are you really going to say that the DA has no pull in a GJ case what so ever?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Simply asking that question indicates you don't understand it...

A DA might have some pull to GET a GJ, but has no pull on what the outcome of a GJ may be.

a reply to: raymundoko

The DA and good ole bob got what they wanted IMO just like your in opinion this DA was out there to bring down this cop, cause that happens so often.
Agree to disagree.

a reply to: raymundoko
You keep saying people do not know how a grand jury works when you yourself claimed the grand jury's secret decision was unanimous.

That is not necessarily the case. A grand jury votes by member, and the voting need not be unanimous. In fact, the closest a grand jury must be to unanimous is to have a supermajority (in this case, 9 of 12) finding probable cause to indict on a charge. Any less than that is automatically no true bill, aka no indictment. It is also illegal for the voting results to released - they are secret by law.

Please stop acting as if you know how it works and can criticize others' understanding of a grand jury, when you very clearly do not get that.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: raymundoko
You keep saying people do not know how a grand jury works when you yourself claimed the grand jury's secret decision was unanimous.

That is not necessarily the case. A grand jury votes by member, and the voting need not be unanimous. In fact, the closest a grand jury must be to unanimous is to have a supermajority (in this case, 9 of 12) finding probable cause to indict on a charge. Any less than that is automatically no true bill, aka no indictment. It is also illegal for the voting results to released - they are secret by law.

Please stop acting as if you know how it works and can criticize others' understanding of a grand jury, when you very clearly do not get that.

Umm, the GJ that heard the evidence regarding the Wilson case DID vote unanimously, according to MO law and the laws of the jurisdiction the case was heard in.

As we reported earlier, "The grand jury is made up of nine white and three black jurors; seven are men and five are women. A decision on criminal charges requires agreement from at least nine of the 12."

Here's a link to that article: Link to NPR

9/12 is 3/4 of the GJ members and is considered "unanimous" as far as the LAW related to this GJ is concerned. You keep harping that it is not "unanimous" when, in fact, in the eyes of the law, it absolutely IS unanimous.

A GJ is NOT A TRIAL! See, in an actual criminal trial, a unanimous vote would be ALL THE JURY in agreement on a verdict. A GJ doesn't decline guilt, or innocence. They hear the evidence from the prosecutors and decide, based in evidence and witness testimony ONLY if there is enough evidence to indict the subject.

Here: a bit of education on GJ's.

Again, when it comes to the Wilson case, 9/12 IS CONSIDERED UNANIMOUS. Period. NO ONE will ever see the voting record for this case, so let it go already and stop criticizing other people, especially when they're 100% correct.

Wow, I don't remember seeing this information here. There is a company called Backstoppers Inc., who sold a T-shirt that states I support officer d wilson, with proceeds going to the defendant. The problem?

The prosecutor, McCulloch, is also President of Backstoppers Inc. Conflict of interest anyone?

Ugh, can't get the cached google page link to post without mangling itself.

a reply to: lovebeck

Uh, no you've got quite a bit of that wrong. The NPR article confuses the issue, shocking I know.

Very simply, actually read that "bit of education on GJ's" you linked:

Grand juries do not need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment (depending on the jurisdiction).

Read that more carefully. In this jurisdiction, the jury size is 12 and the requirement is 3/4ths.

This applies to, as stated, agreement for indictment - not agreement for no indictment. Any fewer than the requisite number means no indictment. It does not mean unanimous anything. Arguing that it is "considered unanimous" is absurd, because you would be changing the definition of the word in law.

Maybe this will help you understand, supposing these are votes for indictment on a particular charge (0 being unanimously no true bill returned):

1. No true bill
   
2. No true bill
   
3. No true bill
   
4. No true bill
   
5. No true bill
   
6. No true bill
   
7. No true bill
   
8. No true bill
   
9. True bill
   
10. True bill
    
11. True bill
    

And 12 being true bill returned unanimously.

a reply to: Greven

The news said it was unanimous, can you link that it wasn't? And how does that show I am not familiar with a GJ? I have been under the impression the GJ voted unanimously and I believe I got that from CNN. That doesn't indicate an ignorance of how GJ's work...

Edit: Upon researching it, Anderson Cooper said he didn't know if it was unanimous, but we don't know the final tally. So I simply misunderstood what he said.

As usual though you miss the mark. You're assuming that I assumed it was unanimous, when that isn't the case. You however have assumed that it is only 9/12, which you do not know either.

Long thread - yet I have been watching from the wings and appreciate all the input .

May have missed it - can someone edify me on the make up of a Grand Jury ie; are they called to jury duty
as here in Oz ?

Or is it a get together of like minded individuals ?

Something sounds a little - different to my ear.

a reply to: Timely

They are selected the same as a normal Jury. Random people from the community. I've received a normal jury summons and ended up on a grand jury twice in my life.

One completed with an indictment and the other was stopped after the first day because I think the would be defendant ended up accepting a plea or some such, but I can't fully remember.

a reply to: raymundoko

Thank's for the clarification ..

Due process is an amassment of experience ...

Hope it settles soon.

Best wishes for all involved !

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

The news said it was unanimous, can you link that it wasn't? And how does that show I am not familiar with a GJ? I have been under the impression the GJ voted unanimously and I believe I got that from CNN. That doesn't indicate an ignorance of how GJ's work...

Edit: Upon researching it, Anderson Cooper said he didn't know if it was unanimous, but we don't know the final tally. So I simply misunderstood what he said.

As usual though you miss the mark. You're assuming that I assumed it was unanimous, when that isn't the case. You however have assumed that it is only 9/12, which you do not know either.

You are now saying 'at least 9' as if it takes a supermajority - 9 people of the 12 jurors - to not indict, now after claiming the news said it was unanimous - despite the fact that grand jury voting is secret. You are confused.

Again, it does not take 9 of the 12 to not indict on a charge.
Again, it takes at least 9 of the 12 to indict on a charge.
Again, even if 8 jury members had voted to indict, no true bill would be the decision.
Again, there does not need to be a supermajority to not indict.
Again, the only time there needs to be a supermajority - in this jurisdiction it is defined as 3/4ths - is to indict.

We do not know how many voted not to indict. It could have been unanimous. It could also have been as few as 4 grand jury members.

a reply to: Greven

I never said 9 of 12, you did...

All I said was I originally thought it was unanimous, I just misunderstood what Cooper said.

a reply to: raymundoko

You literally just said, after previously thinking it unanimous:

You however have assumed that it is only 9/12, which you do not know either

The only way that can be interpreted is that you think 9 or more jury members must vote not to indict.
Again, that is not the case: anywhere from 4 to 12 grand jury members could have voted not to indict.

a reply to: Greven

I took that from your previous post...notice it says "you" there in that quote...

Edit: However I just re-read your post. I see what you were saying now. I never said anything that disagrees with that...

originally posted by: raymundoko
I took that from your previous post...notice it says "you" there in that quote...

You didn't know the actual voting and misheard it.
You kept acting as if it took a majority not to indict.

Now you're just deflecting and not worth further time explaining how things actually work.

a reply to: Greven

I never once acted like that...

I already said I misheard, that doesn't indicate I don't understand how or works, as usual though you failed.

a reply to: Greven

Honestly, I don't think it particularly matters whether the voting was 12-0, 6-6, or 9-3. Since there's no "close" in a situation such as this, no means no and yes means yes.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

Honestly, I don't think it particularly matters whether the voting was 12-0, 6-6, or 9-3. Since there's no "close" in a situation such as this, no means no and yes means yes.

It matters only so much as it can be used to spin a narrative, such as this post

No, because the grand jury determines what testimony may be believable. In this case they determine the testimony was most likely inaccurate when compared with the medical and physical evidence. I'm sorry you don't understand how this works.

Which is a bizarre take on things, given the 3/4ths requirement to indict and no known voting.