The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[Yonivore]

Wrong is a word of many meanings. I don't know that he did anything illegal but that is as far as I will go. I think the corrupt nature of DA run GJ for cops is wrong and he is an active participant in the travesty.

The issue is that the conflict of interest is a corruption that calls into question of the legitimacy of the proceedings. You can cherry pick arguments and witness statements from such a system all you like but there it still is.

The problem you have here is that the Grand Jury reached the right conclusion. Pick an instance where the Grand Jury was swayed into making the wrong decision by a prosecutor and you might have an argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm kind of wondering from where Fuzzy would have chosen the special prosecutor. Most people considered for the job also have a prior, friendly relationship with law enforcement.

I'm not opposed to the idea, mind you, but, I think it at least needs to be shown the current prosecutor has acted in a manner that denied justice to those involved in the case. I also think having a special prosecutor selected for every case in which a police officer is involved is impractical. The people elect their District Attorneys to make the determinations inherent in the office. If they lose confidence in the DA, replace him.

My preferred notion is you create a standing body with it's own investigative and prosecutorial staff. While they may have some relationship with law enforcement prior that won't last long considering on how cops behave. After all, closing ranks and protecting themselves is what the TBL is all about.

I especially like it because it is exactly the checks and balance approach to ins utionalization that makes our country great.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem you have here is that the Grand Jury reached the right conclusion. Pick an instance where the Grand Jury was swayed into making the wrong decision by a prosecutor and you might have an argument.

Your 'right conclusion' was based on the witnesses and arguments that an official with a clear conflict of interest presented. You can keep trying to gloss that over but it is what it is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your 'right conclusion' was based on the witnesses and arguments that an official with a clear conflict of interest presented. You can keep trying to gloss that over but it is what it is.

How can you claim to know what was presented when you've admitted to not reading what was presented?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can you claim to know what was presented when you've admitted to not reading what was presented?

Someone with reading skills would note that I never claimed that. My point repeatedly has been that the conflict of interest subsumes it. I don't think you understand what it means to subsume something. You never got mutually exclusivity either.

From now on if I ignore you, it means that I think what you said was once again stupidity and I am not wasting my time further.

[Yonivore]

My preferred notion is you create a standing body with it's own investigative and prosecutorial staff. While they may have some relationship with law enforcement prior that won't last long considering on how cops behave. After all, closing ranks and protecting themselves is what the TBL is all about.

I especially like it because it is exactly the checks and balance approach to ins utionalization that makes our country great.

Well, sounds like you have a cause, go forth!

[TheSanityAnnex]

Someone with reading skills would note that I never claimed that. My point repeatedly has been that the conflict of interest subsumes it. I don't think you understand what it means to subsume something. You never got mutually exclusivity either.

From now on if I ignore you, it means that I think what you said was once again stupidity and I am not wasting my time further.

You can't claim the conflict of interest subsumes it when you don't even know what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, sounds like you have a cause, go forth!

Nice dissemble. Surrendering the point of significance is noted.

[Yonivore]

Nice dissemble. Surrendering the point of significance is noted.

I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.

He doesn't know what the prosecutor did or did not present to the grand jury (admitted) so he can not answer your question other than to just say there was a conflict of interest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.

It's de facto corruption due to the conflict of interest. This is the exact same point you were being obtuse about before.

[Yonivore]

It's de facto corruption due to the conflict of interest. This is the exact same point you were being obtuse about before.

But, I don't see a conflict.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But, I don't see a conflict.

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.

[Yonivore]

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?

You recommend criminals investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers?

Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.

Okay.

[TheSanityAnnex]

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.

Can you explain the difference between an officer involved shooting and a citizen involved shooting, concerning grand jury hearings.

[Yonivore]

Here you go, Fuzzy! Rep. Hank "Tipping Guam" Johnson Wants Federal Control of Local Grand Juries

New Bill Would Move Use of Deadly Force Cases to Special Prosecutor, Open Hearing

What could go wrong?

[boutons_deux]

Here you go, Fuzzy! Rep. Hank "Tipping Guam" Johnson Wants Federal Control of Local Grand Juries

New Bill Would Move Use of Deadly Force Cases to Special Prosecutor, Open Hearing

What could go wrong?

less than went horribly wrong in Ferguson and Staten Island.

[Yonivore]

less than went horribly wrong in Ferguson and Staten Island.

Nothing went wrong in Ferguson -- the case got a more thorough Grand Jury proceeding than almost any case in history. And, the right conclusion was reached.

I won't argue with you over the Staten Island case, there is room to argue the cop could have been indicted for criminally negligent homicide if, in fact, the technique he used was banned by the Police Department because they knew the risk it posed. But, he wasn't indicted. That doesn't relieve him of civil liability.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, cons utionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the iden y of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the iden y of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

[Yonivore]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, cons utionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the iden y of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the iden y of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

Ultimately, the point is this: If Michael Brown had shot a person in self-defense and, it was clear to the responding police and the prosecuting attorney this was the case, it never would have been presented to a Grand Jury.

You may recall, this was the case in Sanford, Florida. The police initially refused to file a complaint because the evidence indicated Zimmerman's account was accurate...as it eventually was determined to be.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ultimately, the point is this: If Michael Brown had shot a person in self-defense and, it was clear to the responding police and the prosecuting attorney this was the case, it never would have been presented to a Grand Jury.

You may recall, this was the case in Sanford, Florida. The police initially refused to file a complaint because the evidence indicated Zimmerman's account was accurate...as it eventually was determined to be.

Oh, I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's a nice way for you to avoid the rest of the discussion, unquestionably, but I think the greater likelihood with proof that depends on the credibility of witnesses and such, is that there would be an indictment to allow a jury to weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses (with an intervening effort to secure a plea bargain from a vulnerable person facing life-altering criminal liability).

The accused's defenses and alibis only rarely make it before the grand jury, even where those defenses might be supported by strong evidence.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's a nice way for you to avoid the rest of the discussion, unquestionably, but I think the greater likelihood with proof that depends on the credibility of witnesses and such, is that there would be an indictment to allow a jury to weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses (with an intervening effort to secure a plea bargain from a vulnerable person facing life-altering criminal liability).

That wasn't the case in Sanford, until after the usual suspects opened their pie holes and started demanding "justice" for Trayvon Martin.

We simply disagree. Police and prosecutors make these determinations every day. Not everyone who pulls the trigger and kills another person faces a Grand Jury or trial. Our Criminal Justice system allows for the police and prosecutors to make these determinations based on the products of their investigations and their experience in the law.

The accused's defenses and alibis only rarely make it before the grand jury, even where those defenses might be supported by strong evidence.

Those police and prosecutors believe are innocent of a crime NEVER even face a Grand Jury. Which, I hasten to add, would have probably been the case in Ferguson had the "hands up, don't shoot" crowd not harangued the prosecutor into doing so.

[ElNono]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, cons utionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the iden y of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the iden y of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

Very well put, and I would add that on the grander scale, it damages the notion that we're all equal under the law, and erodes the trust in the judicial system.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.


The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, cons utionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the iden y of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the iden y of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

I appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/c...ions-ev/nftqK/

Over the past five years, Travis County prosecutors have presented 25 cases to a grand jury in which a law enforcement officer used deadly force. Only Charles Kleinert has been indicted.
That track record is hardly unusual. Harris County grand jurors haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. Until this spring, when two Dallas police officers were indicted within a week, that department hadn’t seen an officer criminally charged for shooting a civilian for 40 years.

Such statistics are especially stark when compared with defendants who are not police officers. When defendants are civilians, prosecutors say, most grand juries return indictments.

Experts say the reasons for the disparity are procedural and psychological. Prosecutors tend to pre-select citizen crimes before presenting them to a grand jury to consider criminal charges, weighing whether they have enough evidence to go to trial.

By comparison, many jurisdictions present every police shooting to a citizen panel, regardless of whether or not there is a su ion the officer acted questionably, said Kim Vickers, executive director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which licenses peace officers.


“These cases go to a grand jury to provide the public assurance the investigation is going to be open and above-board, not just police investigating police,” said John Moritz, spokesman for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, the state’s largest police union.

And despite what the public’s first impressions may be, many police shooting cases are much more complicated once all the facts are known.
“These cases are not always as they seem when we first hear about them,” said Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. “Once we dig deeper, there are invariably other issues that come up, which is why we are so thorough in presenting them.”

In the calm of a closed chamber, grand jurors tend to empathize with police performing a difficult job. Moritz said the public understands that officers carry a gun for a reason.

“When an officer displays lethal force, it’s because he or she believed it was an imminent threat to public safety,” he said.

[ElNono]

I appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

Over the past five years, Travis County prosecutors have presented 25 cases to a grand jury in which a law enforcement officer used deadly force. Only Charles Kleinert has been indicted.
That track record is hardly unusual. Harris County grand jurors haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. Until this spring, when two Dallas police officers were indicted within a week, that department hadn’t seen an officer criminally charged for shooting a civilian for 40 years.

Such statistics are especially stark when compared with defendants who are not police officers. When defendants are civilians, prosecutors say, most grand juries return indictments.

This is his salient point... it's not about this case particularly (notice the use of 'the white son of a fellow country club member'), but the fact that the grand jury system seemingly gets turned upside down in a minority of instances largely dependent on who is the accused. If anything, this case simply brings to the forefront the double standard. For over 99% of the cases out there, the grand jury system (if it's even used) has a certain way to proceed and brings out an indictment almost in every case (that you or me getting indicted). But when the accused is of certain class, then the whole system gets turned upside down, the bar seemingly gets raised, and we have a fairly different system. We know this happens (I said I wouldn't be surprised if Officer Wilson is not even indicted very early on in this case), but I think it's very debatable if this double standard is doing our justice system any favors.