Shocking mistake in Darren Wilson grand jury

[Man from Pickens]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

I don't know how to embed but watch this video, it's a bombshell. The assistant prosecutor gave the jury a law which was ruled unconstitutional almost 30 years ago!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Yes, Lawrence has been on this for a week now.

I would like someone to take the DA and his staff before the Bar...they all need to lose their licenses.

[billhicks76]

25. Cop Tampered With Evidence?

Wilson obviously lied so what's to say he didn't scoop up some blood during the 4 hrs Michael Brown laid in the street and put it on himself, his gun and the interior of the car while no one noticed or cared?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

41. I think his mindset was he wasn't worried for one second about getting in trouble.

Especially in that town, where it is now documented FACT that the police department treated the local AfAm community as a way to fund their department with fines and so on.

He did open himself up to all kinds of civil, for sure, and possibly criminal problems when he talked about how he made a conscious decision to shoot and kill Brown...it is in one of those interviews

Experts say this opens him up ...

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[hopemountain]

3. and only lawrence is covering this fact & story

why? because limited coverage is a form of censorship.

[aikoaiko]

4. I read they informed the GJ afterwards that it was no longer constitutional

[GeorgeGist]

14. not really ...

they were quite obtuse.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. Lawrence O'Donnell discussed this narrow issue again last night

The two prosecutors never clarified what part of the earlier Missouri law was no longer effective. They did say that part of the law was supplanted by a Supreme Court decision but they didn't go into detail. When a grand juror asked for a 'yes' or 'no' answer as to whether the Supreme Court could really replace a state law the prosecutors refused to give the obvious 'yes' answer. Instead, they said they didn't want to get involved in "law class".

[IdaBriggs]

36. Not according to the transcripts. nt

[99th_Monkey]

5. Yup.

This is one of the more egregious violations of GJ protocol committed by "prosecutor" McCulloch, but not the only one.
Some others are (here's just 2):
1) Wilson getting to testify to GJ without any cross-examination,
2) McCulloch instructing jurors to ignore any testimony that was inconsistent with Wilson's version of what happened.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. I didn't hear about this:

2) McCulloch instructing jurors to ignore any testimony that was inconsistent with Wilson's version of what happened

[99th_Monkey]

12. That's what McCulloch kept saying during his 1/2 hour "explanation" of the verdict to not indict.

Don't you recall that?

He kept dismissing virtually all testimony (except for Juror #10) as being run-away 'social media' over-reach and full of "inconsistencies" ... that's when I KNEW what the decision was going to be, to let Wilson walk.

[badtoworse]

17. My recollection is a bit different than that

I don't recall him saying that he told the grand jurors to ignore any witnesses. He did describe the testimony and my sense was that he did so to explain why the GJ might have reached the conclusion it did. I believe he said that some witnesses maintained consistent testimony, some changed their testimony when the forensic evidence showed their testimony to be inaccurate and some later admitted they did not actually see what happened. He did say that the jurors heard testimony from everyone. I don't remember him describing any instructions given to the grand jury

[99th_Monkey]

20. Well, there was at least ONE instruction we know about, as cited in OP

McCulloch instructed the GJ to base their decision on "a law which was ruled unconstitutional (by SCOTUS) almost 30 years ago"

[sabrina 1]

29. He was supposed to be looking for an indictment. Instead he was acting as a defense attorney. He als

was involved in a fund raising effort for his 'suspect'. That right there, should get this entire sham thrown out and cause him to be investigated by the DOJ, AND the Bar Association regarding his law license. Actually I believe I read that the Bar Assoc is looking into his conduct.

[Blue_Tires]

40. +1

[Enthusiast]

43. Precisely.

[DMay]

39. Only 2 said Brown did not have hands up

Wilson, the cop, and a admitted racist who changed story. First this witness said they were 100 yards away, then at GJ said maybe 50-75 yds.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

42. DA used witness 10 as the main one to back up the story, yes "story" Wilson told

yet witness 10 made a huge change in his testimony

If you really care about the truth, or anybody reading this, you can find out what that was.

DA was OK with this one witness changing stories but not with anyone who backed the alternate details given by so many witnesses.

For me it is REAL simple, I watch a video of two out of town, completely non-invested contractors who are watching the shooting going down, they are on video watching it and they react or one of them does with his hands in the air with a frustrated body language as in why in the hell did you shoot him...

NOBODY is that good of an actor to create improve in the moment like that, there is NO question he is responding to seeing Brown with hands in the air

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” the worker told Fox 2`s Washington on August 12.

http://fox2now.com/2014/09/08/two-jefferson-county-construction-workers-describe-michael-brown-shooting/

That is what happened, period.

[99th_Monkey]

45. +100 nt

[badtoworse]

7. Who would cross examine in a GJ proceeding? The jurors are allowed to ask questions.

[99th_Monkey]

10. It's almost unheard-of to even allow an accused perp to appear on their own behalf before a GJ

and if anyone was going to cross examine it would have to be "prosecutor" McCulloch.

But wait, McCulloch was totally acting like Wilson's defense attorney. So scratch that.

[badtoworse]

11. So the idea of cross examination doesn't apply to a GJ?

[DefenseLawyer]

13. There is no cross examination before a grand jury

It is not an adversarial proceeding. The Prosecutor presents the evidence he wants the jury to see in order to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. Or in this case the Prosecutor presents the evidence he wants the jury to see in order to guarantee there will be no indictment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. True ...

Typically, adverse witnesses/evidence never makes it to the GJ ... only the evidence that supports the State's case.

But in this strange case, the prosecutor DID cross exam the witnesses that did not support Wilson's account.

As I wrote before:

I spent the better part of the weekend reading through the transcript ... it read like a defense attorney's dream ... to be able to defend the accused before the GJ ... AND control the order of how and what evidence gets to them!

McCullom couldn't have done a better job at getting the No Bill had he walked in and said, "I don't believe you should indict this up-standing member of our fine law enforcement community; but ... you know ... I've got to go through the motions.

Drinks on me at O'Malley's!" (a local cop bar, back in the day).

[99th_Monkey]

16. No. Universally GJ's typically ONLY hear evidence FOR a conviction

being presented BY the prosecutor. It's incredibly rare for a GJ to not indict. Check it out:

"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://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

[badtoworse]

21. If a prosecutor believes no crime has been committed or that he can't win in court,...

... then he doesn't take the case to the GJ. That's why a no true bill is rare.

[99th_Monkey]

28. Exactly, which is why McCulloch should have recused himself

because he clearly was NOT acting as a "prosecutor" of Darren Wilson, but more like his defense attorney.

[sabrina 1]

30. There is no defense present at a GJ. They are generally provided information only by the prosecutor

and as stated above, it is very rare for the subject of the GJ, in this case the 'suspect', to appear in their defense..

It is also unheard of for a prosecutor to be involved in fundraising for his 'suspect' as occurred in this case.

[ColesCountyDem]

33. I'm glad you used the word 'almost'.

Contrary to what many posters believe, it is absolutely permissible in most jurisdictions to compel a suspect to testify before a grand jury. The suspect may testify or may choose to exercise his/her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but his/her counsel may not enter the grand jury room.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Wilson didn't really need to have a "counsel" present during his GJ testimony

After all, he had a Faux-"Prosecutor" there, behaving suspiciously like Wilson's attorney.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Hell ...

From the transcript:

Q: Did you guys have a volatile, well, how can I put this. Did you not really get along well with the folks that lived in that apartment, not you personally, I mean the police in general?

Wilson: It is an antipolice area for sure.

Q: And when you say antipolice, tell me more?

Wilson: There’s a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There’s a lot of violence in that area, there’s a lot of gun activity, drug activity, it is just not a very well-liked community. That community doesn’t like the police.

Q: Were you pretty much on high alert being in that community by yourself, especially when Michael Brown said, ‘ what you say,’ I think he said?

Wilson: Yes.

Q: You were on pretty high alert at that point knowing the vicinity and the area that you’re in?

Wilson: Yes, that’s not an area where you can take anything really. Like I said, it is a hostile environment. There are good people over there, there really are, but I mean there is an influx of gang activity in that area.

...

Those aren't questions "Prosecutors" typically ask the accused. They are designed to evoke sympathy for the "poor misfortunate soul" that finds themselves in a, clearly, hostile and dangerous corner of hell.

McCulloch instructing jurors to ignore any testimony that was inconsistent with Wilson's version of what happened.

I hadn't read that instruction. I must have missed it. Can you point to where it was given?

[TrollBuster9090]

24. Hard to believe those are "prosecutor's" questions, isn't it? nt

[99th_Monkey]

27. My saying McCulloch 'instructed' jury to ignore evidence is my interpretation of his statement

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED.

FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OFFICER WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEWS CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322925-1/ferguson-missouri-grand-jury-decision-announcement

[badtoworse]

31. A law professor's take

Go the link provided and read the last paragraph in the article it links to. The article says that the jurors were told that to indict Wilson, they would have to find no probable cause that Wilson acted in self defense or that the shooting was justified.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025900553

[JDPriestly]

38. Do you have a link supporting number 2?

That does not sound credible. There must be some mistake.

[99th_Monkey]

46. What I have is my very opinionated interpretation of this portion of McCulloch's "explanation"

Which I already provided here and there is a link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5900587

When he got to this point early in his 20 min. dissertation as to why white cops can shoot young black males dead at-will, and get away with it; I totally KNEW there would be no indictment whatsoever.

[progressoid]

8. Rec!

[DefenseLawyer]

9. It was a lot of things, but it was certainly not a mistake. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

15. Rec

[calimary]

35. Another Rec!

They were determined, from the get-go, to protect this cop and make sure he was untouched. From the very moment they decided to leave Michael Brown's body unattended, and did NOT compel Darren Wilson to write up a report immediately thereafter, as soon as he got back to the police precinct. AS SOON AS. Like what's supposed to happen after any shooting incident involving the police. But they let him stroll. And let him look at all the evidence and eye-witness accounts and EVERYTHING - BEFORE he had to make or present or write any statements. NO WONDER he slid through this. He was allowed to tailor his statements and any testimony after seeing everything the eyewitnesses reported, so he could counter it and then keep his story straight. THAT is what burns me up!!!

This was rigged. From the beginning. THIS WAS COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY RIGGED! They knew exactly what to do to slide this guy through safely. He had cover from the very beginning, and frankly, his defenders weren't interested in what the other side might be. THEY were already jury, judge, and executioner. They "settled" this case before it even got off the ground.

I wish there was a do-over with that grand jury, now that it's been shown to be so horribly compromised and the results completely bogus, fraudulent, and not credible.

[BrotherIvan]

26. ^^This!^^

No mistake. Reading the transcript, you see this was just one of many actions that lead to the no bill. The prosecutors worked extremely hard for their client, Darren Wilson.

[TrollBuster9090]

22. "Not a bug, but a feature."

It wasn't a "mistake."

The purpose of a NORMAL Grand Jury hearing is to decide whether there is a reason to go to trail or not.

The purpose of THIS Grand Jury hearing was to make sure it DIDN'T go to trial.

[mercuryblues]

32. One of the

points brought up by an article I read last week.

The jury heard testimony and viewed evidence, interpreting it based on the (unconstitutional) law they were given at the beginning. When it came time to decide, they gave them the new law and would not discuss the changes and why it was changed.

This was not a mistake. This was deliberate. Someone had to make an concerted effort to find the (unconstitutional) law dating back over 30 years ago. They knew the affect it would have on the jurors during testimony. They thought they could get away with it by providing the updated version before deliberation.

I don't know what system they use to find jury instructions, but I am damned sure it has been updated more than a few times in the last 3 decades.

[blkmusclmachine]

34. Mistake???

[leanforward]

44. Thanks for this thread.

It would seem that at least 3 prosecutors need to find other law work. I'm sorry I missed the original broadcast. Lawrence has done again. To me, it now seems that there was intentional misleading information provided. Then poo pooing the direct answer. They are trying to cover the policeman at any cost.

But, wait aren't the police suppose to work for us?

[baldguy]

47. "Mistake" implies that it wasn't intentional.