Grand Juror Sues McCulloch, Says He Mischaracterized the Wilson Case

[Bjorn Against]

Source: Saint Louis Public Radio

A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.

The grand juror, referred to only as "Grand Juror Doe" in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American.

“In the grand juror’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Doe's own.”

“From the grand juror's perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

Read more: http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FU3Uc2o56rp#mobile/42321

[Hoyt]

1. That's an interesting turn of events.

[still_one]

2. Sue for what, and can she sue a public official? I can see how the families can file civil rights

or a civil suit against Wilson and the Ferguson PD, but I don't think this will go too far

[Bjorn Against]

3. Of course you can sue public officials

The suit does not seek monetary damages, the juror simply wants the right to talk publicly about the case.

[still_one]

12. got it, thanks

[LiberalFighter]

4. Sue to allow grand jurors on that case to talk about it.

[still_one]

9. thanks

[4139]

5. Sue to be able to speak out on the GJ proceeding

Essentially the jurors are bound by a gag order and the juror is suing to have it lifted.

Nosey me what to know but I'm not sure lifting the gag would be a good thing.

[Feral Child]

10. Transparency is *always* a good thing.

What do they (the Prosecution) have to hide, if they proceded properly.

It's pretty clear they didn't.

[ColesCountyDem]

6. The grand juror lacks legal standing.

The grand juror can not demonstrate any harm to him-/herself caused by McCullough's actions. I sympathize with their trying to make a point, however.

[Feral Child]

8. Psychological damage?

I think there's a possibility of grievance there. If the plaintiff feels they have a moral duty to report injustice, it could be causing feelings of guilt.

[Pantagruelsmember]

11. No harm?

If his membership in that GJ was revealed, I can see how he would feel harmed in his community. He wants an excuse for their conclusions and he probably deserves one.

[cosmicone]

14. She can claim and prove harm to her reputation and character

from mischaracterization of the grand jurors' opinions regarding the case.

The DA opened the door by speaking about it publicly and she has every right to sue in order to tell her side of the story.

[displacedtexan]

15. Your signature quote speaks to the juror's need to make the proceedings public.

The courts (plural) will decide the merits of the suit. Meanwhile, we'll all continue to discuss this tragedy and hope justice will prevail.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

17. What?

If the juror let a criminal off the hook because of poor performance on the DA's part, he/she will have to live with that the rest of his/her life.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. I disagree ...

The Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that is "chilling" (i.e., harming by infringement of) his/her 1st Amendment Right to express his/her opinion about the evidence and the investigation and mccullom's inaccurate characterization of the GJ deliberations.

[branford]

30. I, too, cannot see how the juror has any standing in federal court (or state court),

unless MO has some rather unique, unusual and explicit grand juror rights.

Not only has the grand juror suffered no legally cognizable harm, but he or she has no prima facie right to a certain presentation of the evidence before the grand jury, a matter within the sole discretion of the district attorney.

The best indication that the case is a big loser was the ACLU statement,

"American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply."

I cannot, as a legal matter, ascertain what makes this case unique. Press coverage, community resentment or just wanting to discuss one's experience as a grand juror, does not provide standing, is not a a recognized harm, and has never before, to my knowledge, overcome the presumption of the sanctity and secrecy of the grand jury.

Moreover, any assertion of some free speech right by the juror would obviate the vary nature of grand juries and conflict with the rights of Darren Wilson as a criminal defendant.

[PoliticAverse]

60. Of course the grand juror is being harmed as their first amendment rights are being restricted.

The extent to which a grand juror's rights may be restricted I don't believe is a fully settled issue.

For example in the Supreme Court case of "Butterworth v. Smith" the court noted that:
"State's interests in preserving the confidentiality of its grand jury proceedings must be balanced against Smith's asserted First Amendment rights"
and
"The potential for abuse of the Florida prohibition, through its employment as a device
to silence those who know of unlawful conduct or irregularities on the part of public officials, is apparent."

That case concerned the right of a grand jury witness to reveal their testimony and the court found for the witness
(with the restriction that they could not reveal anything additional they learned during their testimony
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/624/case.html )

This case is complicated by the DA's action (in releasing certain materials and making certain statements)
and Missouri's Sunshine Law.

Here is the complete complaint the ACLU has filed (.pdf):
http://www.aclu-mo.org/files/4214/2047/0504/Grand_Jurur_Doe_Complaint_1-5-15.pdf

[ColesCountyDem]

84. Butterworth was a witness, not a grand juror.

Butterworth was a journalist who had first hand knowledge of the events about which he testified, and about which he had written prior to testifying before the grand jury. The court held that he could not be subsequently silenced, simply because he appeared before the grand jury. The issues are completely different.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Since the prosecutor released info to the public, those that have discovered

the identity of the Grand Juror could very well be giving them cause/harm/harassment, even if the specific detail the prosecutor released wasn't the juror's name.

[ColesCountyDem]

37. What legally protectable interest does the grand juror have?

The grand juror must show that he/she has a personal legal interest that has somehow been damaged by Mr. McCullough's actions, and that entitles him/her to seek relief in the court having jurisdiction. The injury to the plaintiff must also be direct and substantial, and it must be a direct result of the defendant's actions.

I submit that no such legal interest exists, because no injury has occurred.

[John1956PA]

45. Federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff's right to free speech is being abridged.

I would argue that the MO law which abridges the grand jury jurors' right to speak out on the evidence and deliberations is constitutional only if the proceeding is conducted according to law. I would argue, that in this case, the prosecutor derailed the process by proffering witness #40 whose account has since been discredited, and by muddling the instructions so as to cause the grand jury to take into account actions of Michael Brown which were not relevant. In light of the sham nature of the proceeding, the first amendment right of the juror should prevail over her oath to remain silent.

[ColesCountyDem]

46. Your argument assumes the grand juror has a right to speak about the proceedings.

Can you cite any case law that is on point regarding this rather novel argument?

[John1956PA]

50. Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), gives the witness the right to speak after adjournment.

The case was decided on First Amendment grounds.

I would argue that the same First Amendment right to speak out should apply to jurors of a grand jury if the proceeding is later deemed by a court to have been significantly flawed.

In this case, the plaintiff has hurdles to overcome. However, I agree with the ACLU that the effort is one which is worth undertaking.

[ColesCountyDem]

53. And I would counter with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6(e)(2)(B)(i).

[quote]...

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).[/quote]

Once again, there is no federal or state case law whatsoever giving a grand juror the right to disclose what occurred during the grand jury's secret proceedings. Indeed, disclosing what occurred, etc., may (and likely will) result in punishment for contempt, and possibly criminal charges.

[Jim Lane]

57. First, that rule is federal, not state.

Assuming that Missouri has the same or a similar law, you'll note that it also prohibits disclosure by "an attorney for the government" (Rule 6(e)(2)(B)(vi)). If McCulloch violated a rule, then the question arises of the appropriate remedy. There's at least a colorable argument that, if the rule is that everybody keeps quiet, but one person breaks the rule and goes public with his side of the story, then a reasonable remedy is to allow someone else to counter that improper disclosure. A judge might conclude that nondisclosure is better than full disclosure but full disclosure is better than biased, partial disclosure.

[ColesCountyDem]

63. I realize it's a federal rule, but the point is...

... a Federal judge is highly unlikely to find some new 'right' that entitles this grand juror to speak. Again, it goes back to a matter of standing, and this juror has no right that has been infringed, nor can he/she demonstrate any injury that the court can redress.

[msanthrope]

64. Ah...but you haven't considered the intervenors. nt

[ColesCountyDem]

65. Why would I?

There are none, and even if there were, the threshold question remains one of standing.

[msanthrope]

66. How does this juror not have standing? They were handed three statutes and threatened with

prosecution by the DAs team.

And you should consider the intervenors--because I suspect there will be quite a few.

[ColesCountyDem]

67. Do you know what standing is?

In essence, standing requires that the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer some injury, and that that injury is addressable by the court. This grand juror has not been harmed in any way whatsoever, nor does he/she have any 'right' to speak about proceedings before the grand jury.

[msanthrope]

68. Um...as a criminal defense attorney who has practiced in both state and federal court, yes.

You are applying Lujan incorrectly. You really should give Bond a read.

[ColesCountyDem]

74. No, I'm applying it correctly.

Lujan directly supports my contention that this plaintiff has no standing. This plaintiff has suffered no 'injury in fact', which is the threshold set forth in Lujan. Furthermore, Bond offers no guidance in the instant matter, and I'm puzzled why you think it does.

[msanthrope]

77. You are very carefully ignoring the threat of prosecution described in the Complaint. That, my

friend, crosses the threshold. You are also ignoring the other injuries described by the Plaintiff.

I think you are simply wrong.

[ColesCountyDem]

78. I'm not ignoring it-- it simply isn't there.

This plaintiff is no differently situated than any other grand juror, and any threat is not specifically directed at him/her, and any 'injury' would be self-inflicted. The plaintiff has no right to speak about what went on in the grand jury room, and neither you nor anyone else has been able to cite a single case saying that he/she does.

I think you are simply wrong.

[msanthrope]

79. You and I (and the ACLU) will have to agree to disagree. nt

[ColesCountyDem]

83. Indeed. n/t

[John1956PA]

69. Plaintiff would argue that her standing is equivalent to plaintiff's in Butterworth v. Smith.

From Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990):

At the same time, we have recognized that the invocation of grand jury interests is not "some talisman that dissolves all constitutional protections." United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973). Indeed, we have noted that grand juries are expected to "operate within the limits of the First Amendment," as well as the other provisions of the Constitution. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 708 (1972). See also Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962). We must thus balance respondent's asserted First Amendment rights against Florida's interests in preserving the confidentiality of its grand jury proceedings.

[msanthrope]

70. Note, too, that the Plaintiff has already been threatened with prosecution---

the Complaint is pretty specific about how the GJ was given three statutes and instructed by the prosecution.

This was done under the color of law. That action constitutes a threat from the state.

[ColesCountyDem]

75. Every grand jhuror is threatened with prosecution, if the reveal details of the proceedings.

Is it your contention that a grand juror may not be threatened with contempt or criminal punishment for disclosing what occurs during the proceedings?

[Jim Lane]

88. Standing is different from the merits

If a historian finds some old Colonial-era document, and on the basis of that brings a suit to reconfigure other people's property lines, because seeing the lines "wrong" on a map triggered his OCD, his case gets thrown out because he lacks standing.

If I own one of the affected lots and assert a claim to ownership of part of my next-door-neighbor's property, I have standing. I'm not some self-appointed intermeddling busybody; I have a real personal interest here. The defendant's motion to dismiss my suit for lack of standing should be denied. Then, of course, the second branch of the defendant's motion, to dismiss my suit on the merits (either for failure to state a claim under that state's equivalent of F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations) should be granted, because property lines that are more than 200 years old aren't subject to re-litigation. In fact, the merits are so clear that my attorney might be sanctioned for frivolous conduct, but that still doesn't mean I lack standing.

Back to the real case: This grand juror, clearly threatened with prosecution if he does something he wants to do, has standing to challenge the law that prohibits him. I'd say he had standing even if his only claim were that the secrecy rule is a per se violation of the First Amendment -- although that claim, challenging the entire grand jury system, is an almost certain loser on the merits. His better argument is that the rule should not be applied in this instance, at least not in full. I don't know if that's a winner. It's at least plausible enough not to get the lawyer sanctioned for frivolous conduct.

[ColesCountyDem]

90. I'm aware of what standing is.

This grand juror's potential 'injury' can only be self-inflicted, and the threat to prosecute him/her is not unique to him/her, but applies to every grand juror. Why should an exception be made for this grand juror, and not the tens of thousands of grand jurors nationwide every year?

[Jim Lane]

91. You and I have different views of standing.

This grand juror's potential 'injury' can only be self-inflicted,

That argument would apply to anyone who contends that a criminal statute, under which he or she is threatened with prosecution, is unconstitutional. Without bothering to do any research, I'm fairly sure that such circumstances have been held to confer standing. That the plaintiff could avoid injury by obeying an unconstitutional statute doesn't negate the constitutional claim.

and the threat to prosecute him/her is not unique to him/her, but applies to every grand juror.

Standing usually requires an interest that's different from that of a member of the general public. It does not require an interest that's different from that of everyone else in the world. If the state passed a law requiring grand jurors, upon completing their service, to sacrifice a goat to Zeus, every grand juror would have standing to challenge that law, even though the threat to prosecute for a failure to sacrifice "is not unique to him/her, but applies to every grand juror."

Why should an exception be made for this grand juror, and not the tens of thousands of grand jurors nationwide every year?

That goes to the merits, not to standing.

Statutes that are challenged on constitutional grounds are sometimes held facially invalid. In other instances, however, a statute of general validity can be held invalid as applied in a particular case. This grand juror is entitled to make the argument that an exception should be made here, for reasons that have been mentioned in several other posts in this thread. The one that I think has the best chance of succeeding is that McCulloch's post-grand-jury press conference, and his public discussion of the proceeding, either supports a First Amendment right of the grand juror or, less sweepingly, supports the court's exercise of its equitable powers to give the grand juror some liberty that he otherwise wouldn't have, as a remedy for McCulloch's violation of the rules (assuming there was one). Others in this thread point to the unusual level of public interest in the case. I personally think that one is a loser but if I were the lawyer for the grand juror I'd certainly feel no qualms about including it in the brief.

[ColesCountyDem]

92. We do indeed.

I can see no injury to this juror by requiring him/her to remain silent. Apparently some of you folks can, although none of you can quite say what that injury is, or how it injures the grand juror.

[ColesCountyDem]

76. Butterworth involved a witness, a reporter, not a grand juror.

It's not even close to being on point.

[branford]

47. Your argument is essentially that grand juries violate the First Amendment.

Since grand juries are recognized by the Constitution (for serious crimes), they have been a part of our legal system since our founding, and the constitutional privacy and criminal defense rights of suspects must also be considered, such an argument will almost definitely go nowhere fast.

Separation of powers and related state and federal authority also provides that generally a prosecutor has discretion whether to bring charges or seek and indictment by a grand jury, and what witnesses and other evidence he or she shows to the grand jury. The grand juror has no recognized right or interest to determine what is presented to them.

What you or others may consider a "sham" is nevertheless legal, and the grand juror did not suffer any direct and substantial injury cognizable at law.

[John1956PA]

7. Lawsuit seeks to have juror exempted from the MO law requiring that he/she remain silent.

If the lawsuit is successful, the court will enter a declaratory judgment allowing the juror to speak freely about the evidence without fear of being prosecuted under the MO law which prohibits grand jurors from speaking out about evidence and deliberations in grand jury proceedings.

[Feral Child]

13. Off topic.

Sorry to digress, but I haven't had a chance to express my appreciation for your eloquence in recent threads we've both participated in.

Good job, and thanks!

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. WOW ...

Go to line 34 of the suit ... curious phrasing:

34. Plaintiff would like to speak about the experience of being a grand juror, including expressing Plaintiff's opinion about the evidence and the investigation, and believes Plaintiff's experience could contribute to the public dialogue concerning race relations ...

That, along with Plaintiff Doe's assertion that the evidence was presented "with the insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrong-doer", suggests to my that the GJ's deliberations took on a racial tone.

This is going to be good!

[mountain grammy]

18. I still have hope for justice in this case..

and justice in America. An equal and unbiased justice system does not exist in America, the biggest failure of all. Without equal justice, nothing is equal.

[starroute]

23. Who is this "some" you speak of?

The shooter had his own long history of grievances against the cops. He didn't need Darren Wilson as an excuse. Suggesting there's a connection between the two cases plays into the NYPD's meta-narrative in an unwholesome manner.

[bravenak]

25. Results

On Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:51 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Some Could Say Some Justice Has Been Dispensed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=980814

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

troll with unneeded crap ..... pizza time

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:59 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Release dah Kraken!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing wrong at all with the post. Actually very accurate.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Imma go ahead a hide this shit. That was not justice!!! The murder of innocent people by a madman is not justice!

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A low post count over two years does not make a troll. As for the content of the post. IMHO the poster is wrong, but the post itself doesn't seem to fit the "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate" slot.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a very close one. Had he/she included any words to the affect that while this could be blowback, it could also be an unstable map doing unstable things, it was not justified and the killing of innocent cops was horrific - I would have voted to leave it alone.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

55. Not sure I see how jurors justify hiding a post because they disagree with it.

[vkkv]

24. No, the dual NY police killing was not a reflection of Ferguson.

Neither was the two cop killings a few months back in Las Vegas by a couple of methed-out Bundy / Tea Party crazies.

The NY shooter had also attempted to kill his girlfriend earlier the same day. That does not sound like Ferguson blow-back though some media is making it out to be.

[brush]

26. Gutsy post, sad but true. nt

[heaven05]

27. Nothing "gutsy' about it

no truth to it..........except to wilsonthepig supporters......

[bravenak]

29. It was stupid.

I voted Hide. That is not justice. That was a madman murdering innocent people just for being cops. Nobody wants dead cops. Just want good cops.

[brush]

39. I agree that no one wants dead cops . . .

but events sometimes drives those tottering on the edge of sanity to violent action.

And sometimes it drives those who want to protect their community to say enough is enough and to take up arms against police brutality and police killings — as done in Oakland, Ca. by the BPP in the 60s.

I am in no way equating the cop killer in New York with the BPP but I am equating him with my first sentence. He was crazy and went over the edge, spurred on by events, and two innocent cops died. I do agree with the poster in that if Ferguson hadn't happened and Staten Island hadn't happened, the crazed guy with the gun would not have had it in his mind to kill cops.

[bravenak]

43. I was just disagreeing with the justice part.

[brush]

36. I interpreted it differently

It wasn't at all a pro-wilson post imo.

[Feral Child]

52. Post deleted. I admit when I'm wrong.

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

[brush]

56. Again, please see my reply to bravenak above

I think you misinterpreted the poster's and my intentions.

Imo the poster is not at all a pro-wilson person, nor am I — very far from that you'll see once you read my reply to bravenak.

And I take very strong objection at your suggestion that I support something that has racist implications.

[Feral Child]

58. Post deleted. I admit when I'm wrong.

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

[brush]

62. Unbelievable!

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Okay, I'm responding directly to you now.

You misinterpreted my intentions and refuse to acknowledge it.

The poster that I responded to first intimated that if not for Ferguson and Staten Island the two NYC cops would not have been killed. I called that "sad but true" and I stand by it.

You stated that I had been chumped in a bizzare, 180 degree misinterpretation of a pretty straight forward anti-Wilson, anti-police brutality post.

And, fyi, I lived and lived through similar situations where people have gotten fed up and said 'enough is enough' and have taken up arms to defend themselves and their communities from police brutality and police killings.

From your seeming to know-it-all responses, I don't think you can say that.

If you call that being chumped, the only thing I can say to you is that meaning of the post somehow went over your head because I can't see how you would mischaracterize that as a pro-cop post.

Also the term "blowback" used by the poster is a genuine phenomenon of which you seem unfamiliar. Try googling it.

And one last thing, actually being in the trenches in the fight against racism for years as opposed to being a misguided keyboard-tough-guy/gal is not the same thing.

[Feral Child]

85. Post deleted, I admit when I'm wrong.

[brush]

87. The cop killer was obviously crazy

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 03:01 PM - Edit history (9)

I stated as much.

I ageed with the poster that if Ferguson and Staten Island hadn't happened the crazed guy with a gun would not have had shooting a cop in his mind.

It's unfortunate that the timing of his tottering over the edge of sanity coincided with the Staten Island and Ferguson grand jury verdicts and took the focus off the police brutality protests, but blowback does happened.

And it's not always some crazy with a gun who has already shot his girlfriend and thus has nothing to lose. Sometimes it's people who've decided that they've had enough. Acknowledging that phenomenon is not being "chumped" as you put it. It's understanding that people will eventually push back against brutal treatment.

You wrote: "Taking up arms" against the police isn't very realistic, and, unless you're posting from a penal library, pretty doubtful."

Brush up on your history. The original Black Panther Party armed themselves in Oakland, CA in the 60s to protect their community from police brutality and police killings (headquarters on Shattuck then Peralta). Ever heard of the Black Liberation Army, Assata Shakur? You seem not to know any of that. And some of them are, yes, still in prison because they were committed to a cause and determined to do more than walk in street protests, which they of course recognized and supported as part of a wide movement composed of different components moving towards justice and the end of police brutality.

And btw, I happened to be an African American who has experience some of things I speak of and I don't make smart alec, uninformed remarks because of that.

[arcane1]

32. Bullshit. Killing those random cops wasn't "justice" of any kind, and only an idiot would think so.

I guess the NYPD can go ahead and kill some random citizens in retaliation, and that would be ok too?

Let the grown-ups handle this

[7962]

80. Well, look up Khadijah Lynch of Brandeis U, who had "no sympathy" for the cops,

and said a lot of other nonsense, and doubled down on her disgusting comments. And then students SUPPORTED her disgusting comments after they were publicized and she complained. She posts the crap publicly posts and then whined when people understandably called her out on it.
And she has some position of some sort with the university too, I believe

[Feral Child]

48. An apology to DUer "brush"

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I was wrong and I apologize.

My heart's in the right place, but sometimes I lose track of my head and later find it's wandered up my ass.

I'm sorry. I hope you can forgive me.

[brush]

49. Pls see my reply to bravenak above. nt

[arcane1]

31. Only dumb-asses and/or people with an agenda would say that "Justice Has Been Dispensed".

Funny how nobody ever mentions that the cop-killer killed his girlfriend first. Why? Because it disrupts their narrative, because they can't falsely blame that killing on the mayor.

[niyad]

21. I was going to comment on how this juror could not have known what was going on, until I

remembered that not everyone is as informed as most of the people with whom I associate.

I keep remembering dan fielding's comment on jurors in "night court": "a jury of my PEERS??? twelve people who weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty".

[uponit7771]

22. BINGO!!! Even if she doesn't speak the proffering of the Lawsuite speaks even louder...

... and they can give details through the lawsiute as they have

This is good

[blackspade]

28. Where is the popcorn?

[avebury]

33. All Juror Doe needs to do is say just enough in

public to be charged and demand a trial. At that point, the door would be open to the floodgate of information as to what took place during the grand jury process.

Yes the might have the option of prosecuting him/her if he/she speaks out but lets be honest. Do they really want to go down that road? It would create the opportunity for his/her attorney to flip things over and make the trial all about what went down during the grand jury process. The discovery phase alone would be very interesting.

[branford]

35. If the decision was made to prosecute the grand juror,

the pleadings and related documents would be sealed, the courtroom closed during testimony about grand jury proceedings, and the lawyers, parties and witnesses would be subject to a strict gag order.

Most courts and jurisdictions take grand jury secrecy very seriously. I have no doubt the grand juror would be prosecuted if they so directly and defiantly released information. That is why the ACLU is attempting the unusual lawsuit, and I doubt they really believe they'll win.

[Curmudgeoness]

38. Why would anyone want to be charged with a crime

instead of taking the bull by the horns and bringing this to court first? This lawsuit will have the same outcome---there will be opportunity to reveal the doings of the grand jury just from the proceedings.

[avebury]

51. I don't actually think that they would charge the person

if he/she speaks out because it just is not in the best interest of the Prosecutor's office to do so. I think that they would have a really hard time getting a conviction and all the dirt from the grand jury hearing would come out as a part of the court record for any case they file against the juror.

I hope that the juror wins his/her case and is protected from any prosecution but, it being Missouri, I would not hold my breath. One of the biggest arguments on the juror's side is why should on the Prosecutor's office have the right to speak out?

[lancer78]

40. What is the penalty

for speaking out as a grand juror in terms of prison/fine?

[daleanime]

41. Why is the prosecutor allowed to discuss the GJ.....

but not it's members?

[Bjorn Against]

42. I think this is the reason the lawsuit has a real chance of succeeding

In most grand juries the evidence is not released to the public and the prosecutor remains quiet about it until the trial. Because McCulloch released pretty much everything except the names of the jurors and the vote count and he publicly talked about the case it creates a unique circumstance. The judge could rule there is no compelling state interest in forcing the juror to remain silent considering the evidence he or she was not supposed to talk about has already been released.

[alp227]

44. better link

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-juror-sues-mcculloch-says-he-mischaracterized-wilson-case

[wordpix]

89. "The county prosecutor admits that some of the witnesses were lying"

So what instructions/info did he give to the GJ about lying witnesses? And if he knew or thought a witness would lie, why did he allow their testimony?

[laserhaas]

54. The more attention brought to this troubling matter - the Better!

America needs a totally independent handling of this affair!

[Enthusiast]

59. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

This is an awesome development!

[Gothmog]

61. The process was flawed and designed to produce a no bill

This was a bad process that was designed to produce a no bill

[DeSwiss]

71. Add criminal charges for misuse of public office.

- And conspiracy. That's always easy to prove since you don't have to have direct evidence. I'll donate to that charity.....

K&R

[Number23]

72. Wow! K&R

[Judi Lynn]

73. Fighting Court Secrecy, Ferguson Juror Sues to Break Gag-Order

Published on Monday, January 05, 2015

by Common Dreams

Fighting Court Secrecy, Ferguson Juror Sues to Break Gag-Order

Suit alleges that evidence presented to grand jury 'with the insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrongdoer'

by Lauren McCauley, staff writer

A member of the St. Louis grand jury that did not indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the court gag order, arguing that prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch has not accurately portrayed the grand jury trial and that his experience could "help inform a way forward."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the juror referred to as "John Doe," issued a statement saying that the individual "would like to talk about the experience of serving on a grand jury, the evidence presented and the investigation in a way that could contribute to the public dialogue concerning race relations."

Without permission from a court, it is a crime for grand jurors to discuss their service. In the suit, Doe says he is "chilled" from expressing his views on the experience and cites a Missouri state statute which says that a juror could be charged with a class A misdemeanor if found guilty of disclosing details of a grand jury trial. McCulloch is named as a defendant since he would be the person to bring charges against Doe.

According to the suit (pdf), filed in the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court, the experience of the grand jury was not honestly portrayed by McCulloch to the public, despite his claims regarding the "transparency" of the case.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/05/fighting-court-secrecy-ferguson-juror-sues-break-gag-order

[branford]

81. Despite my personal doubts and misgivings about standing, injury and other matters

concerning the lawsuit, and the interesting discussion among ColeCountyDem, Msanthrope and others above, Professor Volokh from the Washington Post, while acknowledging potential problems with plaintiff's case, maintains a strong chance of success because much of the grand jury information has already been released.

For those who are interested:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/05/ferguson-grand-juror-sues-seeking-right-to-speak-about-his-reactions-to-the-evidence/

[Ken Burch]

82. If McCulloch had nothing to hide, he wouldn't insist on a gag rule. n/t.

[branford]

86. The grand jury secrecy rule is state law, and consistent nationwide.

McCulloch himself even needed judicial permission to release the grand jury transcripts.