And, once an attorney learns that a client or any witness intends to lie under oath, the attorney must inform the witness of the consequences of committing perjury and advise the witness not to do so.
This "out" is satisfied by merely making a statement at the beginning, or end of the testimony, that is practically indistinguishable from the swearing in of the witness, i.e., "You understand that you are under oath in this matter and everything you testify to must be your truthful understanding of what has occurred. Failing to do so, could subject you to penalty under law. You understand this ... is that correct?"
I'm pretty certain, though I would have to check the transcript, McCollum (or his staff) read some variation of the above into the record.
(That would arguably avoid criminal liability because no one can MAKE someone tell the truth (we can only warn of the penalty should they choose not to); but, as I mentioned, McCollum's statement puts him (and his staff) on really thin ethical ice.
Whether it is or not, McColloch admitted to it which would seem to invalidate the decision reached by the grand jury, thus the need for a special prosecutor and a reconvened grand jury.
Agreed; but, it's not going to happen on the prosecutor's office's own initiative ... It will have to come from the State's Supreme Court and then, only if it becomes politically perilous not to.
ETA: If I were representing the family of Michael Brown, I would file Bar complaints against everyone in McCollum's office that appeared before the Grand Jury ... let each one of them explain to investigators how THEY didn't know that witness 40 was going; but McCollum did ... and included them in his knowledge. (And the Supreme Court would likely offer a "you can continue to practice" deal to the first one that comes clean.
= new reply since forum marked as read
