The people of Ferguson Mo can legally demend Wilson be taken before a new GJ with

[Malraiders]

a new prosecutor who does not have a conflict of interest in Wilson's prosecution like McCulloch does. And who made it very plain the he believed Wilson was innocent of any crime.

I found this on thinkprogress.org:



Of course, McCulloch would never pursue new charges because — as he made clear in his press conference — he vehemently believes Wilson is innocent. It is McCulloch’s vocal allegiance to the defendant that has caused many legal experts to question the process.

So in order for the evidence to be presented to a new grand jury, a new prosecutor would have to be appointed. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has the power to appoint a special prosecutor for the case. But Nixon, through a spokesman, said he would not appoint one. Most people have treated this as the end of the story.
It’s not.

There is a provision of Missouri Law — MO Rev Stat § 56.110 — that empowers “the court having criminal jurisdiction” to “appoint some other attorney to prosecute” if the prosecuting attorney “be interested.” (The term “be interested” is an awkward legal way to refer to conflict-of-interest or bias. The statute dates from the turn of the 20th century.)
The court with jurisdiction over Darren Wilson’s case is the 21st Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri. That means the power to appoint a special prosecutor is held by Maura McShane, the Presiding Judge of the 21st Circuit.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/02/3598082/one-woman-could-appoint-a-special-prosecutor-and-bring-justice-to-ferguson/

[okaawhatever]

1. Nixon can only appoint a special prosecutor if McCullough recuses himself. He has the power to

appoint, but only if one is needed. Note the statute says the "prosecuting attorney" must "be interested" the prosecuting attorney is McCullough. It all starts with him.

[Malraiders]

2. But also note that the court can replace the prosecutor if the court believes the

original prosecutor is showing a biased view in the case.

From the site:


"In the 1996 case of State v. Copeland, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge “sensed that [the prosecutor’s] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state.” The judge “found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant’s position.”

The criticism of the prosecutor in Copeland largely mirrors the criticism of McCulloch and his team in Wilson’s case. Ben Trachtenberg, a professor at the University of Missouri School of law, told ThinkProgress last week that McCulloch’s statement after the grand jury decision “read like a closing argument for the defense.” Marjorie Cohn, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Thomas Jefferson School of Law agreed, saying “It was clear the prosecutor was partisan in this case, and not partisan in the way prosecutors usually are, which is to get people indicted.” Another expert, Susan McGraugh, an associate professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, also criticized McCulloch’s conduct. “His duty is not to be a defense attorney,” McGraugh said.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Washington University law professor Mae Quinn said she believed an appointment of a special prosecutor by Judge McShane would still be possible under the law. Quinn said, “this case was treated very very differently from every other case before the grand jury in St. Louis County.”

[okaawhatever]

4. From what i've read the problem is there isn't a judge in the Brown case. Because it hasn't gone

before a judge, it's all still in McCulloch's hands. Yes, if there were a judge the judge could remove McCulloch. Without a judge they're screwed unless McCulloch recuses himself.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

11. I think you may have missed that part of the article.

The case has been before a judge -- grand juries work under the supervision of a judge, and that judge still has jurisdiction over the proceeding.

[okaawhatever]

13. I looked for the article i read but couldn't find it. According to Missouri law there were two ways

McCulloch could be replaced. 1. He recuse himself 2. Due to the State of Emergency called by Nixon, he could have used the state of emergency to appoint a special prosecutor. That would have faced legal challenges though because the law wasn't meant to replace a prosecutor who was willing and able to continue.
I don't know about the judge's limitations in this instance. I do know the judge hadn't agreed to release the grand jury transcripts when McCulloch decided to release the himself. I'm not sure a judge in a Missouri gj trial has a lot of power.

[okaawhatever]

5. From what i've read the problem is there isn't a judge in the Brown case. Because it hasn't gone

before a judge, it's all still in McCulloch's hands. Yes, if there were a judge the judge could remove McCulloch. Without a judge they're screwed unless McCulloch recuses himself.

[world wide wally]

3. When a grand jury decides that no trial is needed in the cases of Brown and Gardner,

Aren't they just saying that they don't trust our legal system and the cop may be "railroaded"?
Otherwise, they would just assume that he would be easily acquitted.

[Igel]

7. No, they're not.

Usually no true bill means there's no or insufficient grounds for prosecution.

Any case in which there's a prosecution with insufficient grounds ends either wasting the court's time and government's resources or wastes the defendent's resources. The first is malfeasance. The second is persecution, not prosecution, and many rather like the idea--if you can't find the guy guilty, run up court costs and inconveniences to make his life hell.

In some respects, it's extralegal prosecution and using the government as a kind of vigilante when the laws aren't sufficient, which has often been the American way. No jury by one's peers needed.

(In some circles, nobody wants a jury of the defendent's peers, if they think the defendent is guilty. They'd much rather have a jury by the victim's peers.)

[world wide wally]

9. You don't really believe that is the case here, do you?

[librechik]

6. we should vigorously pursue every civil avenue of redress

calling on the people of ferguson and anyone else who can help with this.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I don't think McCulloch "vehemently believes that Wilson is innocent".

I do think that MCCulloch believes very strongly that with the existing evidence, no jury in a criminal trial could ever find Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is not quite the same thing.

[branford]

10. The article and legal strategy was discussed extensively on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025901280

[jwirr]

12. Unfortunately they can demand anything they want but it does not look like TPB will do anything

about it. As far as I can see the US Justice Department is the only hope.