National Bar Association Lawyers Release Statement Indicating Ferguson Prosecutor Corruption

for me the kicker to indict and go to trial, was when the officer didn't stick around to preserve the scene, didn't wait around for an evidence tech. didn't take pictures, wasn't interviewed on scene, or measurements weren't taken...and he went back to the station to clean up, before any of the evidence gathering took place!!!...just like he went inside to clean up after mowing a lawn...after a fatal shooting!!!....what LEO does anyone know, that would do that?....

a reply to: jimmyx

Good point.

a reply to: Kali74
Yes. Because they had been told to ignore a Missouri law which could have been prejudicial in favor of Wilson. That was sufficient instruction. "Ignore it."

a reply to: Phage

How much of the documents have you read? I've read some witness statements, the first three volumes and Wilson's testimony, so far. I'm curious because generally I trust your analysis of things but I'm really not sure how anyone can read any of it and not see the blatant role flip from prosecution to defense on the part of the DA's office.

a reply to: Kali74
Some. Not a lot.
What I have read indicates a presentation of all available evidence more than any defense or prosecution. I've seen that the jurors were allowed to question experts and witnesses as were investigators.

a reply to: Phage

Do you think based on what you've read so far that there really wasn't enough evidence to indict?

originally posted by: Phage
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.

From my brief explorations this issue of I find this to be an area of dispute in the law area.

In a normal criminal grand jury proceeding the prosecutor is acting on the behalf of the 'state' and presenting what evidence he has to this prelinimary body. They can include all manner of evidence that would not be allowed in a court of law. As I read it, the normal reason for the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence, is that the proceedings not be denied evidence of non-guilt.

In this case, by all measures, the prosecutor was acting as an advocate for the defendant which is a clear conflict of interest.

I'll quote from a paper about using independant procecutors:

lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu...

The bromide that " a grand j ur y would indict a ham sandwich i f the prosecutor
asked it t o " reflects a generally accurate bel i ef that the prosecutor exerts primary
control over t he flow o f information before the grand jury.

Perhaps because the prosecutor's power at this early stage o f criminal
proceedings is paramount, grand juries return indictments in an extremely high
percentage of cases. 15

In many states and the federal court system, the American grand jury is
composed o f twenty-three lay citizens. 7 Its work is conducted in total secrecy,
and the modem grand jury receives guidance and instruction from only one
advocate - the prosecutor. The prosecutor is responsible for making an opening
statement, examining witnesses, introducing physical evidence, preparing the
draft indictment, and instructing the j ury on the legal elements o f the. crimes
presented in the proposed charges. 8 In some states, the prosecutor ma y even
remain in the room while the grand jury deliberates, purportedly to assist in the
event that any jurors have questions.9

Now this article is about abuse of regular suspects - not about (at least as far as I could get in this drivel) a case of the procecution actually working to clear a defendant of charges.

I don't know, nor wish to know, the law. I do think this will be a pivotal case. Maybe just for Bar ethics and when a proscecutor should recuse themselves (which should be when ever a law enforcement officer is accused of a crime.

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.

There are higher standards for evidence during a trial and all proceedings are public. Grand jury proceedings are secret. I heard on the radio that the procecution would make public all the evidence but changed their minds.

This is perfectly legal but not justice in any sense. I would think - if it was a 'good kill', the local police and DA would want the facts to be public.

At least in the Rodney King case the cops went to trial. Yeah, the jury was instructed but at least the public got to see the proceedings and have them on the record.

a reply to: FyreByrd

if it was a 'good kill', the local police and DA would want the facts to be public.

Guess what? They are.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74
Yes. Because they had been told to ignore a Missouri law which could have been prejudicial in favor of Wilson. That was sufficient instruction. "Ignore it."

Ah - I get it now - "Appeal to Authority". That's your go-to answer.

And that is precisely why there should have been an independant prosecutor.

a reply to: FyreByrd

All the documents are public now. The whole thing, from Brown being killed to the grand jury is bizarre.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Ah - I get it now - "Appeal to Authority". That's your go-to answer.

The claim was that the jury was improperly instructed. I'm not sure what your point is.

a reply to: Kali74

Do you think based on what you've read so far that there really wasn't enough evidence to indict?

No.
But I haven't seen all the evidence. I didn't hear the testimony. I did not see the demeanor of the witnesses. I wasn't there. I am in no position to second guess the jury.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FyreByrd

All the documents are public now. The whole thing, from Brown being killed to the grand jury is bizarre.

I'm glad to hear it.

And just for fun:

originally posted by: Shamrock6
That IS how prosecutors treat every case. They treat every case they try according to how they want it to end up.

Which is why we have such a problem in this country with prosecutors illegally hiding exculpatory evidence. Their jobs depend on conviction rates and they have no incentive to actually try and prove the truth.

a reply to: Aazadan
Not sure if your claim holds up. In Missouri, and pretty much all states, prosecutors are elected officials.
www.cga.ct.gov...

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: hounddoghowlie



when you look at all the things ignored like missing witnesses and they still chose not to indict on the lesser of the charges then yes that is loud as hell.

i'm sure they weren't missing because that they were afraid of that snitches get stitches, or that the knew that their story wouldn't hold up in questioning. many witness's just like big mikes friend johnson who was right there with big mike and said he was shot in the back, and we know for a fact that he wasn't shot in the back.



or the witness that said they saw what happened and later said that they heard story and told it as the truth, or the ones that recanted the statements when shown the evidence didn't match their story. or the ones who statements changed



that speaks louder than hell to me.

That is not for this type of grand jury to decide. their typical job is to hear the witnesses and the evidence and see if everything is in agreement or not. The simple fact that contridicting statments were present and that police procedures were not followed should have been enough to turn this over to an open court. This was a closed court that happened and is not typical or legal.

ex. if i get shot and there are two witnesses that contridict eachother then that would be enough for a trial where the two sides can be heard.
If both the witnesses are in agreement then it does not go to trial or it does depending on the testimony of the two.
What we can not have is a closed court throwing out testimony and ignoring missing persons relavent to the case.
If this stands then we just entered into a new type of justice system that will happen in secret even more than before.

a reply to: deadeyedick

their typical job is to hear the witnesses and the evidence and see if everything is in agreement or not.

No. Their specific job is to determine if there is evidence which shows a crime was committed by the subject and to determine what that crime was.

This was a closed court that happened and is not typical or legal.

Grand juries are not legal? Not typical? Are you sure?

What we can not have is a closed court throwing out testimony and ignoring missing persons relavent to the case.

What testimony was thrown out? What missing persons?

a reply to: Phage

He should not have gone after brown because the other suspect was crouched behind a vehicle very near and possibly had a gun pointed at his back and wilson was injured and had already called for back up that was less than a minute from the scene.

missing means that one can not be found and that is a seperate investigation case that has revelance to this case because they gave statments then were not anywhere to be found so they could go to some secret room and sit down with a member of a system that believes it is ok to gun down unarmed citizens in the middle of the street in broad daylight.

All the witnesses in tis case have zero protection from a corrupt police force and therefor have zero reason to feel comfortable enough to tell what they saw and then here come the feds that magically find a couple witnesses days after the shooting that suddenly tell a completly different story from what multiple witnesses stated in reports right after the shooting.

We will all be judged by our actions and words and believe it or not we have an obligation to our selves to seek out truth and fairness in the name of justice.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

their typical job is to hear the witnesses and the evidence and see if everything is in agreement or not.

No. Their specific job is to determine if there is evidence which shows a crime was committed by the subject and to determine what that crime was.

This was a closed court that happened and is not typical or legal.

Grand juries are not legal? Not typical? Are you sure?

What we can not have is a closed court throwing out testimony and ignoring missing persons relavent to the case.

What testimony was thrown out? What missing persons?

Since you can not understand then it would be helpful to yourself to at least listen to the prosecutors statment of the decision again.
This trial or whatever you want to call it was not at all typical of what has been done in the past. Through your ignorrance of the facts you are washing your hands in a deadmans blood and cheering on further corruption of a once great system of justice where people had a voice that was heard.