National Bar Association Lawyers Release Statement Indicating Ferguson Prosecutor Corruption

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FyreByrd

Did you read the part about Scalia being wrong in saying that the subject does not have a right to testify before a grand jury?

Yes I did though I don't follow the why of it.

I suspect the real problem is that the 'suspect/defendent' was about to submit exculpatory ( justify, excuse or mitigate guilt) evidence or rather in this case the prosecutor did. My limited understanding is that that class of evidence is not any part of the Grand Jury process where the only purpose is to evaluate whether or not there exists sufficient evidence to provide a plausable and substantive case for the prosecution.

This is an example of why independant procecutors are needed in any case of law enforcement abuse. Procecutors rely and work with officers on a daily basis to build cases and it's only natural that they would 'bend over backwards' to keep on their good side.

This is a clear case of conflict of interest in this specific case and all other.

I am curious and don't mean to hijack the thread.

Do the people that think this should have gone to trial and are against the use of the grand jury, feel the same way about the Gil Collar case?

If not why the disparity? What makes them so different?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes I did though I don't follow the why of it.

The why of it was the citation of law:

(a) When a criminal charge against a person is being or is about to be or has been submitted to a grand jury, such person has a right to appear before such grand jury as a witness in his own behalf if, prior to the filing of any indictment or any direction to file a prosecutor's information in the matter, he serves upon the district attorney of the county a written notice making such request and stating an address to which communications may be sent.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

My limited understanding is that that class of evidence is not any part of the Grand Jury process where the only purpose is to evaluate whether or not there exists sufficient evidence to provide a plausable and substantive case for the prosecution.

So you think that some evidence should be withheld from a grand jury?

This is an example of why independant procecutors are needed in any case of law enforcement abuse. Procecutors rely and work with officers on a daily basis to build cases and it's only natural that they would 'bend over backwards' to keep on their good side.

That could be one reason this case was given to a grand jury, so that independent citizens could make that decision.

a reply to: 200Plus

In either case (grand jury or trial) it is extremely rare that a cop is charged/found guilty of wrong doing. A trial likely would have ended up with the same result. The problem with this particular grand jury is that the prosecutor is well connected (pretty sure that's usually the case anyway) and that he along with his ADA's very obviously (to many) threw the case and seemed more like he/they were defending Darren Wilson rather than trying to go for an indictment which was their job.

And there's probably nothing anyone can do about it.

originally posted by: Phage
Your headline is inaccurate. Nothing in the statement from the NBA suggests corruption.

McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself

A grand jury is not a rarity.
www.law.columbia.edu...

The prosecuters preferred conclusion? Thats a big problem, i dont care what the prosecutor thinks or believes he should conduct himself in a similar fashion to how he deals with every possible offender on every other case.

I guess you missed that they are saying that the prosecutor did not use evidence to steer the grand jury. They are saying that the prosecutor provided all the available evidence and left it up to the jury to decide if that evidence was sufficient for an indictment.

God forbid reason and sane thinking enter into this subject. I feel that people want to claim this, get outraged about that, etc. but in the end, the problem is they just don't understand what a GJ is used for. That, or they're unwilling to admit that the GJ was done properly, just to save face and continue bitching about the topic.

Either way, some of these comments are laughable. Now the Freemason's are involved? The only Freemason's I've ever seen are old guys who wear funny hats!

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: 200Plus

In either case (grand jury or trial) it is extremely rare that a cop is charged/found guilty of wrong doing. A trial likely would have ended up with the same result. The problem with this particular grand jury is that the prosecutor is well connected (pretty sure that's usually the case anyway) and that he along with his ADA's very obviously (to many) threw the case and seemed more like he/they were defending Darren Wilson rather than trying to go for an indictment which was their job.

And there's probably nothing anyone can do about it.

Obvious to who? How can you "throw" a grand jury? They presented all the evidence, witnesses, etc. which is what is supposed to happen.

Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence that the prosecutors office/DA are being investigated for somehow manipulating the GJ?

My guess is there is NO evidence of this and these rants and complaints are just the ongoing opinions of people who were unhappy that Wilson wasn't indicted because what else can they do except cry foul and keep whining and complaining, hoping someone out there listens and picks the story up.

It's bogus. There is NO evidence that anything was done to manipulate the GJ. These are opinions, not facts.

a reply to: lovebeck

Read the documents.

a reply to: Kali74

Which ones? And I'm not referring to ones that show the DA's office making a half assed attempt to get an indictment. I mean ones that show evidence of jury manipulation or witness tampering. Because bear in mind, nobody forced the GJ to vote the way they did.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I didn't say anything about tampering. I said the DA and the ADA's threw the case... there was no half-assed attempt to get an indictment. There was no attempt at all.

a reply to: onequestion
Who was it that was part of the process that dad was a policeman and was killed by a black guy or have I got my wires crossed.

Forget taking two months to decide if the case needs to go court when your usual murder case is all done and dusted inside of two weeks and just days in some cases.

Sad thing is that good people within the system that do stand up face being put outside the system or even worse but good on them anyway

a reply to: Kali74

And yet...the GJ still could've returned a true bill. I'm by no means saying the DA was a rock star in this case, but he didn't force anybody to do anything. They could have just as easily echoed the sentiment of many on here: this doesn't make sense, so let's indict and make him do it all in court. They didn't.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: lovebeck

Read the documents.

Lol. Like I said, there is NO evidence there was any manipulation of the GJ. Anyhow, I've read A LOT of the actual GJ testimony. Don't need to read another BS opinion piece written by some butt hurt "jounalist" because Wilson wasn't indicted. I knew he wouldn't be and wasn't surprised at all when the news broke, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT ANY CHARGES/INDICTMENT!!!

Try reading the actual testimony, but first educate yourself on the process of indicting someone for a crime and the role a GJ plays in that process. Might want to find the laws and rules for the jurisdiction the case was presented in, too.

a reply to: onequestion

Omg. The OP source of information is Countercurrent News. How can anyone take this seriously??

Here's just one thing I found when I googled CC news:

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler blasted a U. S. senator with four Pinocchios this week for repeating an Internet rumor. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with the Daily Beast that Sen. John McCain had met with the terrorist group ISIS “and had his picture taken.” Paul apparently got his information from sites such as “Weasel Zippers” and “Counter Current News.” “There are days when we regret we are limited to just Four Pinocchios,” wrote Kessler. “This is one of those days.” Read it. Read any good fact checks lately? Send them along and we’ll feature them here.

Link to API.org: Link

ETA: here's a link to the National Bar Association...not to be confused with the American Bar Association.
NBA

American Bar Association: ABA

Unlike some members, I feel people should have ALL the facts, which is vital when making an informed decision. Also, it's important that people know these are just "professional organizations" and nothing more...

a reply to: lovebeck

I'm left wondering about reading comprehension then since I clearly said I was reading the documents myself and not anyone's interpretation of them.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Could have but we'll never know. The way McCullough presented the evidence, instructed them and had the witnesses questioned... the Grand Jury had no choice but to not level charges.

a reply to: Kali74

the Grand Jury had no choice but to not level charges.

Nonsense.
A jury, grand or otherwise, always has a choice. That's the basis behind using a jury.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

the Grand Jury had no choice but to not level charges.

Nonsense.

A jury, grand or otherwise, always has a choice. That's the basis behind using a jury.

unless they are in a corrupt town where they disappear witnesses and then are forced between the saftey of their families and justice. i suppose you can argue that even then they have a choice but what would you choose?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Oh. I see. You know that the jury members were threatened then. Only possible explanation.
Got it.

a reply to: onequestion

One of the worst kinds of creatures in our world is a prosecutor, believe that

Since when does a prosecutor ever want truth?

NEVER

All they want is to win their case

And this clown won his case for Wilson

He was virtually Wilson’s lawyer

He aught to send a bill to Wilson

a reply to: Willtell

All they want is to win their case

What do defense attorneys want to do? Lose?