Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

That's not what happened here. Instead, the grand jury found that Wilson was probably not guilty. That's not their job.

It's up to a trial court, not a grand jury, to decide if a shooting was justified. The grand jury's role is to decide whether or not a court of law should decide if the shooting was justified.

Do you even think about what you're asking? How should anyone know what evidence wasn't presented, since they decided not to even bother with the process through which evidence is properly presented.

You remind me of a boss I had who requested that I list all the unexpected problems that might come up, along with a time estimate for solving each one, so that he could better prepare his budget and schedule. We DO NOT KNOW what evidence might have come up in an actual trial. That's what trials are for.

 

But it it's secret, how can this request be honored? And when some of it is presented as evidence, you invariably hand-wave it away as "spurious".

This was a deliberate whitewash. It reeks of cronyism. EVEN IF Wilson was pure as the driven snow, it is STILL a whitewash and corrput.

 

The correct procedure would have been to not allow exculpatory evidence to be presented to the grand jury. It ain't the prosecutor's job to present it, and it ain't the jury's job to hear it. AND, it ain't the judge's job to allow it.

 

Scalia actually piped up about it years ago but, what can I say, he's YOUR SC justice.

 

You are crazy. The federal government has jurisdiction over the Unites States of America, including Missouri

 

Yep, that's exactly right. Without a trial, we don't really have a full understanding of what happened. McCullough knew perfectly well that a trial was a no-win situation for Wilson - after all, riddling unarmed teenagers with bullets, however justified, can't be good for the career. And for all McCullough knew, an actual jury trial would have an all-black jury selected from the population of Ferguson, and that jury might actually find Wilson guilty. McCullough couldn't take that risk, so he made sure it never came to that.

McCullough isn't stupid. He knew that he was choosing between protecting a cop and letting Ferguson burn, or setting the criminal justice system loose on a cop. And for McCullough, that's a slam dunk. He also apparently knew that most people don't know the difference between a trial jury and a grand jury. They see the word "jury" and they think it determines guilt or innocence. And sure enough, we have virulently pro-police anti-thug (everyone the police shoot) people convinced that the grand jury found Wilson innocent. The cynicism here is astounding.

 

Wrong again they found no probable cause that he violated the law thus he stands as not guilty of a crime. That was their job.

There first has to be probable cause that is was not justified, they could not conclude there was, he remains innocent.

If there is probable cause to bring an indictment, there was not.

The evidence was presented, you and others are claiming somehow it wasn't so therefore you must know of some evidence that was not present else what is the premise of your position them? What is the basis that it was not presented.

Spare me your bogus analogies. The fact is we as citizens have protections against unwarranted prosecution by the government, one of those being the grand jury made up of citizens who decide if the government has a case to be brought based on the evidence. That was not the case here as judged by the grand jury and by anyone who takes an unbais'd view of the evidence.

Again we should NEVER take someone to trial if there is not probable cause to do so. If you think otherwise then please explain why.

 

It is YOUR statement of fact that the DA made sure Wilson never went to trail. OK prove it then and be specific with examples of the grand jury transcript which are NOT secret, their questioning of the witnesses along with the questioning by not on the country DA but also that of the DOJ/FBI investigators are in the evidence dump. So prove it. Else admit your are just blowing smoke.

The phony allegations LACKING any evidence are spurious, give me the evidence to prove your statement of fact.

Prove it then.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever which indicates that Wilson committed a crime.

 

Nonsense it can be presented to a grand jury and most certainly should have been in this case, what purpose would withholding evidence serve?

NOTE: The Grand Jury and Exculpatory Evidence: Should the Prosecutor be Required to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury?
2000
48 Clev. St. L. Rev. 829
Author

Ali Lombardo 258

Excerpt

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Williams 1 that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. 2 Prior to this decision, several federal circuit courts 3 and district courts 4 recognized a duty on the part of the prosecutor to introduce exculpatory evidence, but now according to Williams, this duty no longer exists in the federal grand jury system. 5 However, states are not bound by the federal court decision of Williams. In many jurisdictions, statutes require a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. 6 In addition, some state courts have held that prosecutors must present evidence if the evidence negates a defendant's guilt, if the evidence is substantially exculpatory, or if the evidence is clearly exculpatory. 7

This Note argues that the Williams decision is flawed because it diminishes crucial rights of defendants and because it prevents the grand jury from fulfilling its protective function. In Section II, this Note examines the historical background and purpose of the grand jury in England and America. Section III discusses the Williams decision and the rationale behind both the majority and dissenting opinions. It also discusses the flaws and injustice of the decision. Section IV focuses on the jurisdictions that require prosecutors to present exculpatory to the grand jury. Section V proposes a statute for prosecutors in Ohio and ...
https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=7310244543973a48372604089f61cff6

The grand juries job is to protect the accused from unwarranted prosecution. Remember the Tony Stewert race track incident. The DA presented the videos which were exculpatory.

Here another one

"The writ asks the Fourth Court of Appeal to examine Smith’s rejection of the so-called so-called Johnson motion, named in reference to the precedent-setting case Johnson v. Superior Court, Larson’s request that the charges against Burum be thrown out, citing allegations prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.
The explication of the basis for Larson’s request that the appellate court make a finding that the charges be thrown out on these grounds makes the most compelling argument for Burum’s innocence contained in the document.
“A grand jury’s purpose is to stand ‘solidly between the ordinary citizen and an overzealous prosecutor,’” Larson and his co-counsel, Dennis Fischer, state in the writ. “It must not act as a prosecutor’s ‘rubber stamp,’ but instead should be ‘an independent bulwark’ of justice.”
But because of the way in which prosecutors selectively presented information to the grand jury, according to Larson and Fischer, the grand jury failed to act independently and ultimately rubber stamped the prosecutions version of events.. “[A]s Mr. Burum established in his Johnson Motion, the People withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury that would have eviscerated their circumstantial case against him,” the writ states.........

According to Larson and Fischer, “The People also hid from the Grand Jury similarly exculpatory statements.”
Supervising Deputy California Attorney General Mellissa Mandel indicated through her secretary she would have no comment on the matter outside of court filings and the courtroom until the case concludes. "
http://sbsentinel.com/2014/10/prose...-evidence-from-grand-jury-burums-lawyers-say/

 

Yes "Going out of his way to" means something to people who the prosecutor doesn't "go out of his way to" when they are not a cop ergo you have white folks laying down in protest in front of the department of Justice over this shooting and black folks burning down things.

I guess there is not point discussing how this was not the normal process to those who have no clue what the normal process is like. Why bother? For that matter, why bother with any discussions on this site....

 

It's amazing how things get twisted. If you listen to all the different spins on this story I understand the confusion. You need to look at the forensics. Michal Brown wouldn't have gun residue on his hand if he was shot 100 feet away. Some of the evidence suggests he was shot within 12 and 30 feet including the shot to the top of the head. The officer did call for back up, The officer was inside the car when Brown hit him twice and tried to get his gun.

Brown was a bully and a thief as witnessed by a security camera from the store he robbed. When stopped, he refused to obey the law and decided to challenge the authority of the officer. Nothing racial here. Not one witness came forward and said that the officer made any derogatory remarks to Brown. Brown did make a couple to the officer though.

In the aftermath of all this I truly believe Brown's stepfather should be arrested for inciting a riot with his comment "burn this B***h to the ground" and the crowed did. At least some civil suits should be directed at him.

 

You are ignorant of the law and no the federal government does not have that jurisdiction in the states. Murder is a state crime not a federal crime unless it occurs on some federal property or to a federal official or some very specific cases to do with ancillary federal felonies or interstate activity or purposeful and premeditated civil rights violations. The ONLY federal charge in question here is a federal civil rights violation and there is no evidence of that at all.

Federal murder charges

8 U.S.C. 1342 Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.
18 U.S.C. 32-34 Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 36 Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting.
18 U.S.C. 37 Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation.
18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials.
18 U.S.C. 241,
242, 245, 247 Civil rights offenses resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 351
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice.
18 U.S.C. 794 Espionage.
18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce.
18 U.S.C. 924(i) Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime.
18 U.S.C. 930 Murder committed in a Federal Government facility.
18 U.S.C. 1091 Genocide.
18 U.S.C. 1111 First-degree murder.
18 U.S.C. 1114 Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official.
18 U.S.C. 1116 Murder of a foreign official.
18 U.S.C. 1118 Murder by a Federal prisoner.
18 U.S.C. 1119 Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country.
18 U.S.C. 1120 Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. 1121 Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer.
18 U.S.C. 1201 Murder during a kidnapping.
18 U.S.C. 1203 Murder during a hostage taking.
18 U.S.C. 1503 Murder of a court officer or juror.
18 U.S.C. 1512 Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant.
18 U.S.C. 1513 Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim, or informant.
18 U.S.C. 1716 Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 1751
[by cross-reference
to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President.
18 U.S.C. 1958 Murder for hire.
18 U.S.C. 1959 Murder involved in a racketeering offense.
18 U.S.C. 1992 Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.
18 U.S.C. 2113 Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping.
18 U.S.C. 2119 Murder related to a carjacking.
18 U.S.C. 2245 Murder related to rape or child molestation.
18 U.S.C. 2251 Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.
18 U.S.C. 2280 Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation.
18 U.S.C. 2281 Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform.
18 U.S.C. 2332 Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country.
18 U.S.C. 2332a Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
18 U.S.C. 2340 Murder involving torture.
18 U.S.C. 2381 Treason.
21 U.S.C. 848(e) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
49 U.S.C. 1472-1473 Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...QR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwNF8x?qid=20080713142105AAxnnLL

 

Well when you fail to address my rebutal of what you stated and post hyperbole and fallacious statements about the purpose of a grand jury I guess I can see why you don't want to discuss anymore.

 

This is dumb.

Scalia's opinion on how justice works in Ferguson, Mo, isnt relevant.

Furthermore, they didnt even have to send anything to the grand jury, at all.

 

IF there was a willful violation the victims civil rights because of the victims race, a BIG if. That is not the case here. Early on it was leaked they do not evidence of a civil rights violation. They can't just walk in and take over a murder charge because of the outcome a federal grand jury. The only jurisdiction is as I stated and it ain't here as I said.

"Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said.

When racial tension boiled over in Ferguson after the Aug. 9 shooting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. traveled to the St. Louis suburb to meet with city leaders and protest organizers in an effort to bring calm. He assured them that the federal government would open a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. But that investigation now seems unlikely to result in any charges.

“The evidence at this point does not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson,” said one person briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Justice Department officials are loath to acknowledge publicly that their case cannot now meet the high legal threshold for a successful civil rights prosecution. The timing is sensitive: Tensions are high in greater St. Louis as people await the results of a grand jury’s review of the case.

Many supporters of Brown say they are already convinced there will be no state-level indictment of the officer. Federal officials have wanted to show that they are conducting a full and fair review of the case......

Federal law sets a high bar in bringing civil rights charges against a police officer because prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to violate someone’s constitutional rights."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...189d80-6055-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html

 

While I may not necessarily wish to view this through the political lens you present, it seems pretty obvious to me that McCullogh did use this process to avoid having to take an real responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that the purpose here was to avoid a trial by any costs, and to make the press go away.

It worked.

Contrary to the claims of many conservatives here, the purpose of a grand jury has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Yet this grand jury decided just that, and did so without cross examination, the normal rules of evidence, or even a judge present.

McCullogh made an opening statement about procedure, and then disappeared, delegating the entire thing to his staffers.

He made no reccomendation to the Grand Jury regarding the one thing a Grand Jury is supposed to do, decide whether or not to indict.

Since he didn't ask for an indictment, and he delegated the responsibility for presenting the evidence to staffers, he sent a pretty clear signal to the jury.

 

You're quite right. McCullogh delegated the proceedings to his staff.

 

Yeah, DUH DA's don't usual handle grand juries that is what they have assistant DA's do, the DA has an entire office run and other prosecutions do not stop because of one. He had no obligation nor responsibilty to personally handle the case and the statements and false accusations by you and others about his trying to sway it or not seek an indictment to rig are good examples of why he didn't personally, precisely because you would have made such knee jerk excuses.

So you can't have it both ways, claim he

And then

A more hypocritical and prejudiced position I haven't seen for a while.

Now money where mouth is time

How did the DA make sure Wilson never came to trial and be specific and give examples from the grand jury transcripts.

The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is probable cause to take to trial when the person is innocent there is no probable cause, we only take people to trial when there is a reasonable belief they are guilty, doesn't even take beyond a reasonable doubt. And your are correct in that Wilson did not get to cross examine the witness as it is the defense that cross examines prosecution witnesses but the fact is the grand jury DID get to cross examine them and that is in the evidence dump. The normal rules of evidence exist and a judge is called in if certain legal questions arise.

Yes not unusual he turns the proceedings over to assistants why is that an issue with you?
Did you not listen to his press conference, that is not his job to make a reccomendation to the grand jury he marshals the facts the facts for them and they make their own decision.
You claim malfeasance because your falsely believed he present the evidence himself and then claim malfeasance because he didn't. Your abject duplicity proves the fallacy of your statements.

 

Duh, this is the biggest case in the history of Ferguson, and the man delegated it to staffers?????????

Sure pal.

 

Yes because of those like you who would claim he stacked the deck and failed to properly present it. Pal. Your presented theory went down the toilet when it was pointed out your were falsely claiming:

Obviously you have not read the transcripts and did not listen to McCullogh's press conference proving you are arguing out of ignorance.

 

This is why discussions like this are a waste of time. So we have a right-wingnut claiming that the grand jury considered ALL the evidence (not their job, of course), and came to the conclusion that Wilson was not guilty (not their job, of course), and therefore no actual trial with, like, cross examination, normal rules of evidence, and a judge, is even required. And so we have a case of a grand jury ruling on Wilson's guilt or innocence outside of any actual trial. Was Brown's side of the case represented by legal counsel? Uh, no, we don' need no steenkin adversarial proceeding.

And as many have pointed out (but pointed into deaf ears), now we will never know what might have happened in a real trial. Brown's side was deliberately denied their day in court, and we have yet another whitewash.

 

Ahh did you not listen to the DA, they presented ALL the evidence to the grand jury, if you have something to refute that then post it. And I claimed they found no probable cause that a crime was committed so there is nothing for Wilson to be guilty of therefore he does not get put on trial for a crime that wasn't committed.

It would be Wilson and his attorney that would be doing a cross examination DUH, he is the one the grand jury is seeking whether to indict or not and the grand jury got to cross examinate them anyway.

What rule of evidence did not apply and to what evidence?

They ruled on probable cause a crime was committed and found none, how can you be guilty or innocent of a crime when a crime was not committed?

As much as it would be in a courtroom trial, by the prosecution.

Really, what would have happened in a courtroom trial? First you would have had to make it through a preliminary hearing where Wilson's attorneys WOULD have been able to cross-examine the witnesses, the ones that committed perjury and changed their testimony from what they told the police and the press for example. The prosecution, the assistant DA's would have had to prove it was not self-defense as Wilson would have mounted an affirmative defense. Please cite me the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did not act in self-defense.

Brown doesn't have a side, the state has a side against the accused. You seem to fallaciously believe that the Brown family attorneys would prosecute and present witnesses and cross examine witnesses. where on earth do you get that idea?

 

No crime was committed therefore no trial is required.

 

Why don't we see if the Brown family can be held liable for the burning and looting that took place after their idiot son robbed a store, attacked a police officer and committed suicide...Let them have their day in court.