Fergerson

[delldude]

The GJ screwed up in my opinion.  If you read what the function of the GJ is they nearly always come back with an indictment.  Has nothing to do with guilt of innocence.  This would have gone to trial and let a jury sort through what happened.  From what I have read it sounds like the DA dropped the ball and never intended for this to go to a jury. 

 
 
A jury did sort it out.
 
Maybe you need to enlighten your mind with the facts the jury dealt with.
 
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

 

[Ms Tree]

 
"If you read what the function of the GJ is they nearly always come back with an indictment.  Has nothing to do with guilt of innocence.  This would have gone to trial and let a jury sort through what happened." WOW! So then, in your "opinion" it's the proper duty of of any grand jury to automatically/"nearly always" indict anyone that comes their way, without the slightest regard to "guilt or innocence", just so we can all have a good show at the person's expense that so lucklessly came before the "Inquisition"?...umm...can I even possibly have this right here?  Silly me, I've always believed that any grand jury's true duty was to at least first establish SOME degree of even a tiny inkling that the person was a wrong doer worthy of charges and trial before throwing them into the auto-da-fe, but then...I've always believed in individual Rights, and tragically suffered from at least some degree of logical thought processes as well, so your actual mileage may vary. 
 
Aw heck...What was I thinking? My apologies komrade. This is after all Amerika under the Peoples' Demokratik Party's President, so I suppose we should now insist that anyone who's at all unpopular within any leftist segment of society should be indicted and put on trial so we can always "let a jury sort through what happened", just for sport...?
 
"I have read it sounds like the DA dropped the ball and never intended for this to go to a jury."  I'm all ears here. Kindly state exactly what charges you believe should be brought against the police officer in question, and precisely why he should be criminally charged and brought to trial?  "...it sounds like the DA dropped the ball" so feel perfectly free to pick it up and run with it...This outta' be fun.

 
 
What you believe has never been of any significant relevance here.
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

 

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them. 
 
 

 
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html
 

The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies. Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month. Regular court trial juries are usually 6 or 12 people, but in the federal system, a grand jury can be 16 to 23 people.
 

 
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
 
-  United States V Williams

 
There were eye witness accounts that conflicted with Willsons testimony.  The GJ was not told of these conflicts.  Had they been they probably would have returned with an indictment in hours instead of taking days.  The court system is there to determine guilt, not the GJ.

 

 

[EastUS1]

 
 
What you believe has never been of any significant relevance here.
 
 Had they been they probably would have returned with an indictment........

 
"Had they been they probably...."....? Seriously?  Well, since the best "legal case" you can make is "they probably" (in light of all those wholly and unquestionably unbiased "eye witnesses",  of whom they/the GJ were of course, entirely ignorant of the very existence of, one must now suppose), well, I think we're done here.  Hint: "What you believe has never been of any significant relevance here."

 

[Ms Tree]

That's right.  Ignore the Supreme Court and a judge so that you can continue to draw your own conclusions.  Pretty much par for the course with you. 

 

[EastUS1]

That's right.  Ignore the Supreme Court and a judge so that you can continue to draw your own conclusions.  Pretty much par for the course with you. 

 
My apologies. I hadn't realized the Supreme Court were there as "eye witnesses" to the incident.
 
From your own links: "Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”...yet the GJ found no reasonable evidence on which to indict the officer...so "logically", some ineptitude must have been present?  Is it your agreed contention with the quoted judge that any passing "ham sandwich" could always be indicted and held for trial, assuming some depraved prosecutor's doing his/her job for "justice" properly? Sigh!...What sorry times we live in, when even ham sandwiches aren't safe from legal abuse.

 

[Ms Tree]

Read the case then open your mouth.  The way you do it does not work well.
 
Or the prosecution never intended to get an inditement.  No it is not.  Read the links or not.  Up to you.   Given that out of over 162,000 case in 2010 the GJ only failed to indite on 11 I would say that there is a pretty good chance that a GJ will indite.  I guess it is possible that Willson is just really lucky.
 
I'm going to watch a movie.

 

[EastUS1]

Or the prosecution never intended to get an inditement. 

 
Well, garsh! There must indeed be some poisonous conspiricay afoot then! Well, that, or maybe, just maybe the DA's office honestly believed it to be a fully justified shooting? Nah! That just couldn't be!....Right?

 

[Ms Tree]

So let me see if I understand your position.
 
You believe the prosecutor (who calls the GJ) did not believe they had a case but called the GJ anyway so that he could not present conflicting testimony to the GJ.  This same prosecutor could not get a indictment when in 2010 only 11 cases out of 162,000 did not return with and indictment. I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation why the prosecutor would do that right?
 
I guess the old saying is right.  There is a sucker born every minute.
 
Potty breaks over for the Mrs.  Back to the movie.

 

[dorfner]

 
 
What you believe has never been of any significant relevance here.
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
 
 
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html
 
 
There were eye witness accounts that conflicted with Willsons testimony.  The GJ was not told of these conflicts.  Had they been they probably would have returned with an indictment in hours instead of taking days.  The court system is there to determine guilt, not the GJ.
 

 
You do know many were eliminated by their own testimony being inconsistent with facts.
 
Your article is for the most part based on federal grand jury indictments. Wilson was state.
 

Your link:
Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable.

 
Generally, grand juries will issue indictments in most if not all cases. The standard for indictment is probable cause.  In the context of the grand jury, the Supreme Court has stated, “Probable cause, we have often told litigants, is not a high bar: It requires only the ‘kind of “fair probability” on which ‘reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.’
 

 
CNN
Eyewitness accounts must be challenged
McCulloch spent a fair amount of time talking about the unreliability of some eyewitness statements. Some witnesses, he said, changed their stories. Others were proven wrong by the physical evidence.
 
Stand over Michael Brown and fire many rounds into his back.
 
"Others claimed that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown in the back as Mr. Brown was running away.
"However, once the autopsy findings were released showing that Michael Brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body, no additional witnesses made such a claim and several witnesses adjusted their stories in subsequent statements. Some even admitted that they did not witness the event at all, but merely repeated what they heard," the prosecuting attorney said.
 
Physical evidence was key
As opposed to eyewitness accounts, McCulloch stressed the importance and reliability of physical evidence.
"Physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda. Physical evidence does not look away as events unfold, nor does it block out or add to memory. Physical evidence remains constant and as such is a solid foundation upon which cases are built," he said.

 
So how was the movie?

 

[Ms Tree]

Still watching.  Wife likes it more than me.
 
I understand that the witness testimony may not have been the best but why ignore it?  If the prosecutor called a GJ one can assume he A. wanted an indictment or B did not to be the one to drop the case.  According to the link I posted earlier, indictments are handed out like candy at Halloween.  Why not here?  Reading some of the transcripts it seem like the DA made the case for the defense not the prosecution.  We have a court system for a reason.  They should have been allowed to do their job.

 

[dorfner]

The court system did do their job. GJ made their determination based on the physical evidence which the prosecutor stated "don't lie" and decided with testimony that paralleled the evidence.
.Those documents state Missouri vs Darren Wilson.Where are you getting this idea that witness testimony was ignored?  Its the GJ who decides witness credibility just like in a jury trial.

 

[Ms Tree]

I skimmed through most of the transcripts.  I did not see their testimony.

 

[dorfner]

They were eliminated from their testimony before the GJ, there was something like 70 or so.  They get sworn in and give testimony and the GJ decides who to believe in deliberations.

 

[EastUS1]

So let me see if I understand your position.
 
You believe the prosecutor (who calls the GJ) did not believe they had a case but called the GJ anyway so that he could not present conflicting testimony to the GJ.  This same prosecutor could not get a indictment when in 2010 only 11 cases out of 162,000 did not return with and indictment. I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation why the prosecutor would do that right?
 
I guess the old saying is right.  There is a sucker born every minute.
 
Potty breaks over for the Mrs.  Back to the movie.

 
"There is a sucker born every minute."? = No possible argument. ANYONE who can honestly even imagine that this was the case of just some poor, loving little child being brutally killed by a man half his size, that has now resigned from his job wishing only that none be harmed on his behalf, and that ANY part of this represented an unreasonable shooting certainly qualifies as such..."sucker".
 
"Potty breaks over for the Mrs." Very classy indeed, and"thanks for sharing" that with us all. Make sure to, out of your full and obvious respect for your wife of course, keep the whole world apprised of the next time such a momentous event occurs. "Liberals"....Sheesh.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The prosecutor should have turned it over to another prosecutor or just had the stones to say their was no case, so no grand jury.

Let them try it in a civil case. You cannot take away a cop's ability to do his job by second guessing every move made in these situations.