Ferguson Prosecutor's Idiot Speech Blames Everyone But Darren Wilson

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. You misunderstand

Last edited Tue Nov 25, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact Wilson's homicide is not a central issue is because Wilson has apparently admitted the homicide under oath before the grand jury. A defendant who testifies before the grand jury waives immunity at trial and the prosecutor can introduce that testimony as direct evidence and not just as impeachment evidence on cross examination. I would expect Wilson's defense attorney at trial to stipulate that he shot the bullet that killed Brown. I completely agree that a trial was necessary but the central issue would be whether the homicide was justified based on self defense or whether it was an unjustified murder.

At trial the prosecution won't have to struggle to prove that Wilson did it. He admits it. At a trial, the main controversy would involve whether Wilson was justified.

What I feel you misunderstand is that I agree with you, or rather your response to my post actually agreed with it. We are in agreement on the fact that this should have proceeded to jury trial based on the fact that Officer Wilson killed a man and admitted it. This is not a mysterious who done it where the defendant denies having even committed the act of killing. Every crime involves an "actus reus" or guilty act and a "mens rea", a guilty act done with a guilty mind. The actus reus has been admitted to by Wilson. But he claims that his act was justified as reasonable self defense and he didn't have a guilty mind or mens rea while doing it. His mental state should not be determined by a grand jury. It must be determined from all the facts and evidence, Only legal evidence that had the opportunity for both attorneys to object to if inappropriate and with an actual judge ruling on the admissibility of evidence should be examined by a jury. something that just doesn't happen in a grand jury proceeding,