What are the authorities hiding in Missouri? Why NOT cross examine Wilson on the stand?

[IdaBriggs]

Why the absolute refusal to follow appropriate protocols? Why hiding or not following Sunshine State Law requirements?

Why didn't the Prosecutor, with obvious conflict of interest due to his own personal family life, not recuse himself?

Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen?

Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this?

What went down at the "corrupt" police department (Jennings) that Wilson formerly worked at? How much did he know? When did he know it?

Anonymous has reported ties between Ferguson, Wilson, and the KKK. Is Wilson a member of the KKK "Ghoul Squad"? Who else does he know who is a member of it? What level of corruption lurks at Ferguson? Are they really "incompetent" or are they covering things up?

And why did CNN report the story Wilson testified to that was published on Facebook was "fake"? Who Punked them?

Who is hiding what? I think Michael Brown's death is probably the tip of the iceberg, and I want to know what the Justice Department is doing to clean this up, preferably before more crimes are committed against the citizens of St Louis.

What are they trying to hide?

[TexasProgresive]

1. Good questions excepting the 2nd in your subject line.

The only way to cross examine Wilson would be if he went to trial and took the stand. A defendant cannot be forced to testify.

[Bjorn Against]

2. He did testify before the grand jury

He was not forced to testify he did so voluntarily, the prosecutor could have cross examined him but chose not to. This is highly unusual, the defendant can either choose to testify or not testify but they can not choose to tell their side of the story without subjecting themselves to cross examination.

[IdaBriggs]

6. Exactly. Why wasn't his "past association with disbanded corrupt Jennings" asked about?

The KKK stuff? The protocols and proccedural missteps?

Why are they so intent on protecting him? What are they afraid of him saying?

[TexasProgresive]

20. Please explain to me how that works in a grand jury?

A witness testifies to the grand jury. The only attorneys present are prosecutors, there is no counsel for the defense. Who questions the witnesses. Once the witness testifies is there a cross with redirect and if so who does the cross and redirect?

Never having been on a grand jury or before one I really don't understand the mechanics.

[Bjorn Against]

21. The prosecutor examines the witnesses

There is no defense in an ordinary grand jury, but this was an unusual case in which the prosecutor was acting as defense. It is extremely rare that a defendent would appear before a grand jury because they would not be allowed to have a lawyer with them. For a defendent to volunteer to appear before a grand jury as Wilson did is highly unusual and when the prosecutor does not even cross examine the person he is supposed to be prosecuting that is even more unusual.

[TexasProgresive]

30. Wilson was not a "defendant" since he was not charged.

I understand that often a person is charged with a crime and the grand jury determines to indict. This is probably not done in police shootings.

[Bjorn Against]

33. Well he was the supposed target of the prosecution

It just does not look like the prosecutor had any interest in prosecuting.

[TexasProgresive]

34. My take is that the prosecutor had no real intention of seeking an indictment.

But as to the workings of a grand jury I am still in twilight (not quite dark but close).

[jeff47]

22. The DA basically just let Wilson talk.

While a literal cross-examination is impossible, the prosecutor did not challenge any element in Wilson's story. If the DA was seeking an indictment, he would have pointed out inconsistencies, and where the testimony conflicted with earlier statements.

[TexasProgresive]

31. Are members of the jury allowed to question witnesses?

[jeff47]

32. Depends on the state, IIRC.

IIRC, in most cases they can ask questions of the prosecutor, but not the witnesses. So they could ask the prosecutor about inconsistencies....if the jurors knew about them.

[woolldog]

57. Jeff

Read the difference in how Wilson was questioned and how Brown's friend was questioned. As you noted Wilson's questioning reads as a typical direct exam of an officer, Brown's friend (can't remember his name) was essentially cross examined.

[Little Star]

3. I don't know but...

I would guess that they, in large part, are trying to protect the town from a law suit.

[IdaBriggs]

7. Because that is what the tear gassing protesters and the media and

Pointing guns at people is going to do, right? Stop people from suing?



I don't think they are trying to "protect the town" -- you don't hire one of the 40 guys fired from a corrupt police force if you are trying to "protect" your town from future liability type lawsuits.

More going on here...

[pipoman]

4. "cross examine" means to be examined by someone other

Than the person who called the witness. In a grand jury hearing only the prosecution can call witnesses and only the prosecution can examine the witnesses. There is never a "cross examination" in a grand jury...

The rest is folly.

KKK? Come on....

[Bjorn Against]

5. Since when was the person who called a witness prohibited from questioning the witness?

In every trial I have seen both the side that calls the witness and the opposing side gets a chance to question the witness. This is not a trial it is a Grand Jury so that means only one side can ask questions, but that side is not prohibited from asking questions. Are you seriously claiming that no questions can be asked of anyone who testifies before a Grand Jury?

[pipoman]

17. The point is that it isn't a "cross examination" it is a "direct examination"

[Bjorn Against]

18. OK so you are pointing out a technicality

Rather than arguing technicalities could you explain to me why the prosecutor would not do a direct examination of Wilson?

[pipoman]

25. I believe there was no provable crime committed

Police have near blanket immunity from both civil and criminal liability. It is legal and encouraged of police to stop a fleeing felon in every state I am aware of, up to and including killing the person. That, I believe, is the reality of the situation that the prosecution found themselves in, and that the grand jury found themselves in.

[Bjorn Against]

26. No, it is not legal to kill a fleeing person

Unless the person poses an imminent threat to others police can not shoot a person for running from them. You may support extra-judicial killings by the police but that does not make them legal.

[IdaBriggs]

50. Factually untrue since 1985.

Here it is in plain English....

[woolldog]

58. Don't believe anything pipoman writes.

He is clueless.

You can certainly cross examine a witness you called to the stand as long as the witness qualifies as an adverse witness. You can seek leave from the court to qualify a witness as adverse before questioning begins or during questioning.

In this case the DA could have treated Wilson as a adverse witness and crossed him, on his own initiative, without needing permission from anyone since the DA runs the grand jury. He choose not to and treated the eyewitnesses, esp Dorian Johnson as adverse. Read Johnson's questioning and compare it to Wilson's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025880996

[IdaBriggs]

8. Really? And yes, KKK. They did fundraising for him, and threatened the protesters.

Did you miss that?

[pipoman]

19. So what?

There isn't a single shred of evidence of Wilson's involvement with the klan or any other racist organization. Nor has a single person come forward stating Wilson is a racist, despite the fact he has worked for years in a predominantly black community.

I mean sure there are supporters of virtually any and every politician and cause who are nut jobs, it doesn't mean the politician or cause holds those beliefs....ridiculous.

[Bjorn Against]

23. Lots of people have called Wilson a racist

His testimony claiming Brown looked like a demon was pure racism and the so called prosecutor did not even challenge it. You keep defending this racist murderer all you want but you are on the wrong side of history.

[pipoman]

36. Nobody with any credibility, nobody with a story or anecdote,

Only wishful thinkers and pretenders on internet forums...

[Bjorn Against]

39. In other words no one you agree with has called him a racist

Lots of other people have called him racist however, you don't get to decide who has credibility and who doesn't and expect everyone else to agree with you.

[pipoman]

40. Then educate me

Post a link to any firsthand account or accuser demonstrating Wilson is a racist. He may be, I've seen or heard nothing. ..

[Bjorn Against]

44. Many people have read his racist testimony

Here is one analysis of his words, there are many others who also point out that saying a black person looks "demonic" is pure racism.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7283327/michael-brown-racist-stereotypes

[pipoman]

47. Only stupid people.

[Oktober]

77. I would be interested in any proof...

... And less of this code word interpretive stuff.

[Stallion]

29. How Do You Know That Without Effective Cross Examination?

as an attorney the credibility of the witness is never placed in issue by direct examination. Bias, prejudice and credibility are explored during cross-which never occurred in this "secret trial"

[pipoman]

37. "cross examination" doesn't exist in a grand jury...

No lawyer would refer to a grand jury as a "secret trial" because they would know it isn't. Any lawyer would know and understand that police are largely immune, and criminal conviction requires criminal intent....

[Stallion]

38. Of course, neither does a Defendant getting to testify based on prosecutor soft ball direct

If it wasn't in effect a secret trial-tell me the names of the witnesses. The entire proceeding was back-ass-backwards

[pipoman]

41. The entire proceeding was like every other grand jury

In about any other state. Members of the public were present and participated in the process....a grand jury is private, not secret. ...secret is FISA....

[Stallion]

43. Complete and Utter Nonsense

Defendant rarely testifies
Defendant doesn't generally have the RIGHT to offer his side of story
in the unlikely event, he is invited to testify, his testimony would be aggressively controverted by prosecutor's examination

[KingCharlemagne]

48. While I take your point, Grand Jurors themselves can question witnesses, completely

independent of the prosecutors.

See Volume 4 of the transcript for examples when Grand Jurors asked questions of Mike Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, supplemental to questions asked by the ADA and in a few cases completely independent of any questions asked by the ADA.

I have not yet read the transcript for Wilson's testimony so do not know whether Grand Jurors asked any questions of Wilson.

[woolldog]

56. THIS IS WRONG

You can certainly cross examine a witness you called to the stand as long as the witness qualifies as an adverse witness. You can seek leave from the court to qualify a witness as adverse before questioning begins or during questioning.

In this case the DA could have treated Wilson as a adverse witness and crossed him. He choose not to and treated the eyewitnesses, esp Browns friend as adverse.

"This Court, in the case of London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woelfle, supra, at pages 332- 334 of 83 F.2d, pointed out that the extent of permissible cross-examination of a material witness by the party who called him was dependent upon whether the cross-examination would be helpful in ascertaining the truth concerning the issues being tried, and not upon whether the cross-examination would or might discredit the witness or whether the cross-examiner was actually surprised by the witness' testimony. But we also pointed out that case that cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him was susceptible to abuse and that it was within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the use and to prevent the abuse of such cross-examination." Illinois Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman, 210 F.2d 229, 232 (8th Cir. 1954)

[unblock]

9. if the prosecutor had the slightest interest in an indictment, wilson wouldn't have even been there.

[IdaBriggs]

10. That is the point, isn't it? Why didn't the Prosecutor want an indictment?

How many voters has this pissed off? Why doesn't he care?

Even simple things would have given the PERCEPTION of caring. This level of incompetence/negligence/whatever looks like criminal cover up.

[unblock]

13. prosecutors and the police need each other, they don't like alienating each other.

i can think of worse interpretations, this one's the best interpretation i can think of.

inherent institutional corruption. a prosecutor who relies on police-gathered evidence and testimony for all his cases will always be reluctant to go after one of them.

this suggests that a special prosecutor should be used whenever the accused is a police officer.

[IdaBriggs]

16. Plus the dad/mom/brother/uncle/cousin all working for St. Louis law enforcement.

The perception to the community is cover up. At this point the "investigation" lacks credibility in the eyes of a significant portion of both the community and the nation.

Presumably these are not stupid people - what is going on?

I think it all ties together....

[HereSince1628]

11. Hiding? Maybe they're protecting something...like one of their own.

Anonymous has raised the ugly possibility that the PD harbors an inside clique of racists that could be associated with others serving in other places in municipal, county and state government.

[JEB]

12. Excellent questions IdaBriggs.

Despite the nitpickers, your central question of "What are they trying to hide?" is screaming for an answer. The blatant deep racism that saturates Wilson's testimony is consistent with KKK whether or not he was a "member". The prosecutor certainly has a number of conflicts of interest and should have stepped aside from the beginning. There is certainly an effort to create a smokescreen.

[tridim]

14. Massive KKK infiltration in police forces in Central MO. nt

[jwirr]

15. Your questions are good. The suggestion that there could be a deep connection with the KKK is also

a real possibility. I have seen at least one community that was pretty much all KKK even down to having their own elementary school. This community was not in MO. It was in DE on the east coast.

The history of MO in the Civil War could plays into this also. They were a totally divided state regarding that war and it was more like a civil war in their own state. The religious leaders of one of the biggest churches in that area in that era was pro-south and did not hesitate to use his voice and news letters to say it. I suspect that this intrastate "war" was never settled and the divide can still be seen today.

That this kind of segregated lifestyle would come out of this is not surprising. But it is not right either. And it must end.

[gordianot]

24. This is all being done in plain sight no one is hiding anything.

You can be shot and killed by police and there are no consequences toward the police whom the legal system clears. No need for racist groups or agendas. You can be killed at anytime regardless of race (this does also occur with people whose skin lacks melanin however large amounts of melanin makes it more likely). As proven in Ferguson by the Chief of Police you can be a repeat serial blathering idiot be told to shut up you are allowed to talk and make shit up whenever you choose. As proven by the prosecuting attorney of St. Louis County you are allowed to chair the defense of the person you are prosecuting and make up a process call it a Grand Jury which is secret and immune from the sunshine law.

Missouri legal system has no accountability that is just who they are. Other States have similar systems. When you shoot too many people they become restless. All you need to do is show restraint no one really notices or cares.

[Igel]

27. Most of those have been answered.

Grand Jury proceedings are secret. The testimony and a lot of other information have been made public.

The prosecutor could have recused himself. But he didn't have to. The conflict of interest has been examined, the grounds for recusal under MO law have been brought forward, and recusal wasn't required. The easy answer is, "He didn't recuse himself because he didn't want to."

The governor has limited authority. Unless asked to, or unless the prosecutor recused himself, he lacked the authority to appoint a special prosecutor. "What was he afraid might happen?" falls in the "Do you still beat your wife?" category: There's no indication he was afraid of anything, but, if so, it's irrelevant. It's rather like asking while Obama hasn't appointed somebody else governor of MO--what's he afraid of? Fear, no fear, either way, still no special prosecutor.

The (R) are in a strange place on this. As with Zimmerman, to say, "We back Wilson" would just lead to a target for throwing crap. Some media folk have mentioned the protests. Otherwise, it's something best left to fester or heal on its own. Take the double-talk on the National Guard. It was a provocation, it was unnecessary, it was all fear and trying to make the protesters look bad before they even protested. Then when the NG wasn't thrown in with as much staffing as possible, the problem wasn't mobilizing the Guard but mobilizing it in insufficient numbers. Or the testimony that Brown was shot at as he was running away and hit in the back--with magical bullets that caused disappearing wounds. That's been redacted in the (D) press to only he was shot at as he was running away with a kind of majority-rules for evidence--more people said he was running away than said he was running towards Wilson, so it's clear who's evidence is more reliable. Or the argument that the GJ determines sufficiency of evidence, not reliability of evidence. (So a ton of evidence that's obviously unreliable is sufficient? Really?) You don't need to say much more, to be honest.

Where Wilson worked before doesn't much matter, unless there were race-based shootings that showed intent or racism. Haven't heard of any. Haven't much heard of "corruption," whatever that's supposed to cover. (Preferences in promotion? Kickbacks? Protection rackets? Smuggling? Free donuts?) Relevance?

Allegations of links between Wilson and the KKK are made. Evidence, however, is always just around the corner. Rather than basking in the glow of unfounded allegations, and founding theories on what's itself unfounded, it's best just to wait. Otherwise you find your theories firmly founded on liquifying crap and when the crap finishes liquifying, well ... There you are.

I saw some rambling about the "fake" Facebook page and testimony. It struck me as incoherent, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Same holds true for what you wrote.

[earthside]

28. A Grand Jury is not a trial.

Yet this is precisely how the right-wing is spinning this whole controversy.

Indeed, the attack line of the racist-right is that there should be perjury prosecutions of witnesses that did not corroborate Wilson's testimony.

Without an adversarial proceeding like a trial, we really cannot arrive at a reasonable judgement about what happened in Ferguson to Michael Brown. A court room trial is the basis of our system of 'justice'.

On the face of it, it appears that we have a case here of prosecutors working on behalf of the accused/perpetrator and not seeking truth or justice.

There should have been an independent special prosecutor.

[mainstreetonce]

35. I'm trying to think about it this way.

If Wilson had been allowed to go to trial,conviction was still unlikely. So they are not really protecting Wilson.

They are protecting the corrupt police department .


Good question....what was so important to hide that they had to make sure there will never be a trial?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. Not only was Wilson not cross examined by the prosecutors

but attorney Lisa Bloom pointed out on TV that she was shocked by the fact that at the end of Wilson's testimony, the prosecutor asked him if there was anything else he wanted to add and gave him the opportunity to speak freely at length, as though he were both asking the questions put to himself and answering them. I believe it was at that point that chose to amplify why he felt his life was threatened, which is the central issue in the case.

[branford]

45. In response,

Why the absolute refusal to follow appropriate protocols? Why hiding or not following Sunshine State Law requirements?

What "appropriate protocols" were not followed?

A prosecutor does not need to present a case to a grand jury or seek an indictment in any potential criminal matter, no are they required to even request the grand jury issue an indictment. This is the essence of prosecutorial discretion.

A grand jury is a confidential proceeding. In any event, the transcripts have been released for public review.

Why didn't the Prosecutor, with obvious conflict of interest due to his own personal family life, not recuse himself?

McCulloch was not required to recuse himself because the circumstances of his father's death do not rise to the level of an actual, legal conflict of interest. If it did, multiple parties would have sought his recusal in court. McCulloch's personal circumstances may have created an appearance of a conflict of interest, but withdrawal would be entirely discretionary.

Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen? Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen?

The governor did not appoint a special prosecutor because he may only do so if the local district attorney voluntarily withdraws, or if there is a legally-recognized conflict of interest. Since neither of these circumstances existed, all the governor could do is request that the prosecutor withdraw.

Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this? Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this?

How is this relevant to the actions of the authorities in MO. In any event, I assume that much of their constituency supports Wilson, or more generally the police.

What went down at the "corrupt" police department (Jennings) that Wilson formerly worked at? How much did he know? When did he know it? What went down at the "corrupt" police department (Jennings) that Wilson formerly worked at? How much did he know? When did he know it?

Unless Wilson was proven to have engaged in specific instances of police brutality or other malfeasance similar in nature to the Brown shooting, it is not only irrelevant, but would never be admitted at trial.

Anonymous has reported ties between Ferguson, Wilson, and the KKK. Is Wilson a member of the KKK "Ghoul Squad"? Who else does he know who is a member of it? What level of corruption lurks at Ferguson? Are they really "incompetent" or are they covering things up? Anonymous has reported ties between Ferguson, Wilson, and the KKK. Is Wilson a member of the KKK "Ghoul Squad"? Who else does he know who is a member of it? What level of corruption lurks at Ferguson? Are they really "incompetent" or are they covering things up?

Everything you wrote is unsubstantiated rumor, at best. If anonymous has actual evidence of Wilson belonging to the KKK or engaging in acts of racial animus, they should present it to the DOJ. Vague claims of a cover-up or KKK involvement, without actual underlying facts, is foolish and detracts from any real incriminating evidence.

And why did CNN report the story Wilson testified to that was published on Facebook was "fake"? Who Punked them?

CNN's incompetence or bias has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, and cannot be used to support or oppose legal action against Wilson.

Who is hiding what? I think Michael Brown's death is probably the tip of the iceberg, and I want to know what the Justice Department is doing to clean this up, preferably before more crimes are committed against the citizens of St Louis.

What are they trying to hide?

You can believe anything you want, however the authorities, including the Dept. of Justice, can only operate on actual evidence.

Currently, the DOJ is investigating Wilson individually for federal criminal civil rights violations in connection with the Brown shooting. There is a entirely separate investigation into the Ferguson P.D. concerning racial bias and unconstitutional procedures.

Given the difficulty of proving a criminal civil rights action, and the leaks to the media, a federal indictment, no less conviction, appears very remote. As I don't know the details of the investigation of the whole police department, I cannot offer any opinion about its chance of success.

[Fumesucker]

46. I think to a big extent that's just the way things are done in that community

They didn't really expect this particular incident to blow up into a huge national and international story so they were doing what they would have been doing in any police shooting there and particularly of a black man, as little as possible.

Once the story got spread far and wide in the M$M they were to some extent already committed to their course, a lot of things had been done poorly or not done early in the investigation. I also think there's a strong element of "No outsiders are going to tell *us* how to run *our* town." in there too.

[madville]

49. Even if Wilson had been questioned further

All he would have had to do is decline to answer the questions if he chose not to answer them, correct?

[IdaBriggs]

54. I do not believe that is how things work in a grand jury.

Otherwise President Clinton could have avoided the whole fishing expedition, correct?

[Glassunion]

61. An individual still retains their 5th Ammendment rights in a grand jury

[IdaBriggs]

65. So Clinton had to answer because he wasn't up against criminal charges / just civil?

That was how it was explained to me from someone at the time.

If Wilson was being asked to testify against other people (the Jennings corruption charges and the behavior of his fellow officers when it came to race), would he have had to testify once he volunteered to go in front of the Grand Jury?

I always thought anything was fair game, once you were there, which is why most people don't want to go there?

[Glassunion]

69. He would not have to testify to the Jennings corruption charges either

if it would incriminate him in the process.

Anything is not fair game inside a grand jury. The rules of court are simply different. The Bill of Rights still applies, and you are still due your 5th Amendment privilege. Now there is a way around that. You can compel a witness to testify even if that testimony will incriminate them in a crime. However, what the prosecutor needs to do is offer them (in this case) complete immunity for any corruption, civil rights violations, or crime. An immunized witness cannot claim the privilege as to any questions that fall under the scope of the immunity.

[Gothmog]

51. The DA did not want an indictment

The process was rigged

[B Calm]

52. Maybe they forgot to check for Brown's fingerprints on Wilson's gun?

[IdaBriggs]

53. That is one of the MANY "failures in protocol" - they did not do this.

Bonus: Wilson prepared his own weapon for evidence (instead of a fellow officer doing so).

[Glassunion]

59. I'm struggling to figure out most of your post.

"Why not cross examine Wilson on the stand?" - This was a Grand Jury, there is no cross examination. This is by design.

"Why the absolute refusal to follow appropriate protocols? Why hiding or not following Sunshine State Law requirements?" - This was a Grand Jury, they are private by design therefore they are exactly the proper procedure. Been that way for centuries.

"Why didn't the Prosecutor, with obvious conflict of interest due to his own personal family life, not recuse himself?" - I agree they should have.

"Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen?" - From my understanding of the Missouri law it is outside of the Governor's power to do that.

"Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this?" - I have zero understanding of the Republican thought process.

As for all of the KKK stuff, I cannot say, as it is purely speculation and I have no clue as to the validity of it. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I don't think that they are trying to hide anything. Grand Juries are confidential by design, and they should remain that way. It is not some conspiracy that they are not public. They serve a valuable function in the justice system. Remember, a grand jury is never going to convict anyone of any crime. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence to charge an individual with a crime, so that the person can then have a trial.

However, in this particular case, the prosecutor only brought it before the grand jury under public pressure. The prosecutor was not seeking to indict Wilson, and was merely going through the motions. The prosecutor directs the entire flow of the process and usually controls the outcome.

All of that said, a federal attorney general can still present to a federal grand jury if they feel they have sufficient evidence for federal charges.

[woolldog]

60. Sure there is.

The DA can treat any witness as an adverse witness and cross him. He chose not to question Wilson that way. You better believe that any other Defendant in a grand jury proceeding would've been treated as adverse. the way Dorian Johnson was questioned gainsays the absurd notion that the DA in this case was simply without the power to treat witnesses as adverse here and cross them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025880996

[Glassunion]

62. I think you are missing something.

This was a Grand Jury (not a trial, not a deposition, etc...). In a Grand Jury, the only attorney in the room is the prosecutor. There is no defense attorney at all. There is no cross examination. Period.

[woolldog]

63. Wrong.

First of all read Dorian Johnson's questioning and tell me that he's not being treated as an adverse witness. I linked an OP which contains excerpts of his questioning.

Second when you treat a witness as adverse you are crossing them. It doesn't matter whether there is another attorney representing him there or not.

The DA most certainly could've treated Wilson as adverse and aggressively confronted him on inconsistent statements, questioned him using leading questions etc. ie crossed him. he chose not to. The fact that Dorian Johnson didn't have an atty there didn't stop the DA from questioning him as an adverse witness.

[Glassunion]

67. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you are stating.

Let me preface my following statements before I continue. This grand jury was a sham, as the representative of the state never wanted to indict in the first place.

The state prosecutor called Wilson to the stand as a witness, and spoon-fed him her questions. She allowed him to answer, and led him in the direction that she wanted to. Now when the prosecutor was done questioning Wilson, who exactly was supposed to cross examine Wilson and his testimony?

[woolldog]

70. Let me clarify then.

The prosecutor should have treated Wilson as an adverse witness from the moment he called Wilson to the stand. The prosecutor chose not to do that. If you have any question as to what that would have looked like, simply read Dorian Johnson's testimony...because that's exactly how the prosecutor handled Dorian Johnson. The disparity in how the Defendant and an eyewitness were treated in questioning shows how rigged this process was.

Note that it is perfectly acceptable to cross examine a witness that you call to the stand if they are adverse, which Wilson certainly was here.

See e.g., Illinois Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman, 210 F.2d 229, 232 (8th Cir. 1954) "This Court, in the case of London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woelfle, supra, at pages 332- 334 of 83 F.2d, pointed out that the extent of permissible cross-examination of a material witness by the party who called him was dependent upon whether the cross-examination would be helpful in ascertaining the truth concerning the issues being tried, and not upon whether the cross-examination would or might discredit the witness or whether the cross-examiner was actually surprised by the witness' testimony. But we also pointed out that case that cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him was susceptible to abuse and that it was within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the use and to prevent the abuse of such cross-examination."

[Glassunion]

74. I agree

The prosecutor did not want an indictment.

However, Wilson was not a defendant. He was a witness. In a grand jury there are no defendants as there has been no action brought against any party.

I do not dispute that an attorney can cross-examine their own witness. This however is not applicable in a grand jury, you are thinking criminal or civil trial procedure (which you quoted above).

In trial procedures, a witness is called to stand by either party. They are then "directly examined" by that party, then the other party will "cross examine" that same witness. At this point the original party may "redirect examination" of that witness, giving the second party the opportunity to "recross examine" the witness.

In grand jury procedures, the state presents evidence, and calls witnesses. Nothing more. The jury examines the evidence presented and can question the witnesses. There is no cross-examination taking place at all in a grand jury. The party whom the state is seeking to indict has no representation in grand jury proceedings.

The function of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt, but to simply examine evidence to see if there is probable cause to bring action (indict).

[woolldog]

75. Of course, Wilson *is* the Defendant here.

The case was captioned Missouri v. Wilson. See the Court Docs released by the State.


Secondly, you write: "In trial procedures, a witness is called to stand by either party. They are then "directly examined" by that party, then the other party will "cross examine" that same witness. At this point the original party may "redirect examination" of that witness, giving the second party the opportunity to "recross examine" the witness."

No. A party calls a witness to the stand and if the witness is adverse they can then cross examine them, right then and there. As soon as someone is qualified as an adverse witness you are entitled to cross them. You don't have to wait for the second party ask questions before you conduct a cross examination of a hostile witness. That is an absurd proposition. Refer to the caselaw I cited.

Third, you write: "In grand jury procedures, the state presents evidence, and calls witnesses. Nothing more. The jury examines the evidence presented and can question the witnesses. There is no cross-examination taking place at all in a grand jury."

I agree that in grand jury proceedings, the state presents evidence and calls witnesses. You infer from that that cross examination cannot take place because the state is calling the witnesses. As I've already pointed out to you a number of times, the fact that the DA has called the witness does not determine whether the DA may cross him or not. You can cross your own witness if he is adverse. And you do not have to wait for the other party to ask questions before you begin the cross of a witness you called. And as there is no judge involved in a grand jury, the determination as to whether the witness is adverse is entirely up to the DA. And in any other grand jury proceeding where the defendant testifies, he would be treated as adverse and crossed, just as in a trial.

Fourth, you write: "The function of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt, but to simply examine evidence to see if there is probable cause to bring action (indict)."

We agree on that.

[Glassunion]

78. Ok... Where to start.

Definition of Defendant: the party against whom a criminal or civil action is brought

Wilson has not had any criminal or civil action brought against him whatsoever. So by definition, he is not a defendant. A grand jury case is not a criminal or civil action. It is an investigative body seeking probable cause for action.

Definition of Cross Examination: the examination of a witness who has already testified in order to check or discredit the witness's testimony, knowledge, or credibility.

In criminal or civil procedure (which a grand jury is not), a Cross Examination occurs only after Direct Examination by the party that called the witness. If a party calls a witness, and upon direct examination it is found that the witness is adverse (a party to an action who is on the opposing side), can the witness be cross examined by the party that called them.

"You infer from that that cross examination cannot take place because the state is calling the witnesses." - No I did not. I am stating that in Grand Jury Procedure, there is no direct nor cross examination. The prosecutor is presenting evidence, and calls witnesses for for Grand Jury testimony.

In this case, the prosecutors I feel intentionally presented a bad case, and failed to properly question the witnesses. Especially Wilson. I'm not sure of Missouri Grand Jury procedure, but in my state and federal Grand Jury, the members of the jury also have an opportunity to question all witnesses. I'm not sure if any of the jurors in this case had questioned any of the witnesses, but from what I've read of the transcripts, I cannot believe that the jury would remain so quiet (granted I am still reading them).

[woolldog]

79. *sigh*

Oh so the case is styled Missouri versus Wilson, but Wilson isn't the Defendant....okay....

Wilson was absolutely the Defendant in the grand jury proceeding and it is common to refer to the object of the grand jury investigation as the Defendant. I would refer you to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Title III, Rule 6, governing federal Grand Jury proceedings, which refers to the object of the proceeding, throughout Rule 6 as the "defendant."

As to cross examination and direct, I have repeatedly told you that cross examination does not necessarily occur only after direct examination. It may occur as soon as the witness is deemed adverse, regardless of whatever dictionary definitions you cite. You have apparently chosen to ignore the case law that I have cited to you. I understand you wanting to cling to a definition you found online, but in law there are many exceptions to the general rules, and the treatment of adverse witnesses is one of those exceptions with respect to the timing of cross.

Utlimately, both these issues involve distinctions without a difference...and are distracting from the real issue. The substance of Ida's point (and mine) is that it is unprecedented to grant so much deference to the target of the inquiry in questioning. And it shows that the process was rigged. Seems like on that we agree.

[Glassunion]

80. *sigh* indeed

[woolldog]

81. Yes. You need to provide the drafters of the Federal Rules your internet definitions.

so that they can amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

And by the way, a Grand Jury inquiry is a criminal proceeding.

[IdaBriggs]

64. I have been following closely, so let me try to clarify.

>"Why not cross examine Wilson on the stand?" - This was a Grand Jury, there is no cross examination. This is by design.

Me: I should have used "aggressively directly examine" instead of "cross examine".

A prominent legal expert eviscerates the Darren Wilson prosecution, in 8 tweets http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/25/7285265/darren-wilson-grand-jury
(DU Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025874623)

Still Me: Wilson should have had some questions regarding his credibility asked, based on the whole "weren't you let go from the Jennings Police Department when it was shut down due to corruption?" angle. This would have been a good opportunity for that to get addressed. It was not. WHY?

Officer Darren Wilson Lives in Crestwood, Black Population 1.3%
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/officer_darren_wilson_lives_in_crestwood_black_population_13.html
(From Article: “Wilson previously worked in nearby Jennings, where the black population is 86.1 percent.”)

Jennings police department dissolves
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Jennings-police-department-dissolves-117864314.html
(Article Dated: March 12, 2011 “The council said corruption inside the department led to this.”)

>"Why the absolute refusal to follow appropriate protocols? Why hiding or not following Sunshine State Law requirements?" - This was a Grand Jury, they are private by design therefore they are exactly the proper procedure. Been that way for centuries.

Me: This was NOT in regard to the Grand Jury. This was in regard to the Ferguson Police Department. You can read more about the issues here:

Unorthodox forensic practices shown in Ferguson documents http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/11/26/unorthodox-forensic-practices-shown-ferguson-documents/JEgxCWRIx9y9xYF9QjToeJ/story.html
(DU Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025875750)

Still Me: Or if you want to see basic math problems, you can read all about "boxes" versus "packages" and why the dollar value of the convenience store incident seems to be incorrect.

The Ferguson “robbery” incident report has some problems.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025398525

Still Me: Missouri "Sunshine Law" issues have been mentioned multiple times. You can read more here:
Ferguson’s massive cover-up: How police departments are protecting Michael Brown’s killer http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/fergusons_massive_cover_up_how_police_departments_are_protecting_michael_browns_killer/ (DU has been talking about this for months.)

>"Why didn't the Prosecutor, with obvious conflict of interest due to his own personal family life, not recuse himself?" - I agree they should have.

Me: Okay. The question is Why Didn't He? The answer looks to be "because then he couldn't have controlled the outcome" and that makes it look like the dead kid was in trouble, instead of the guy who shot him. The assumption is that the Prosecutor's close ties to the Police Department and dependence on them to do his job meant that he went beyond the benefit of the doubt in this case because he has never run a Grand Jury like that before EVER. I think the corruption/KKK stuff probably ties in - Wilson probably knows where some of the bodies are buried. So does the Prosecutor. If not, why the farce?

>"Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen?" - From my understanding of the Missouri law it is outside of the Governor's power to do that.

Me: Yes, I have since learned that the Prosecutor has to REQUEST a "Special Prosecutor"; I also know that "pressure" can be applied, especially since they are both members of the same political party.

>"Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this?" - I have zero understanding of the Republican thought process.

Me: All of the people in office are Democrats. This would be a great opportunity for Republicans to point fingers. Not a word about how the "Democratic Prosecutor" has behaved from the Republicans that I have seen.

>As for all of the KKK stuff, I cannot say, as it is purely speculation and I have no clue as to the validity of it. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Me: Links between the KKK and the authorities have not been addressed, which is one of the things I *personally* think is being hidden. Anonymous says they have an informant, and can tie the new Mrs. Wilson to the group, but it is still internet smoke. What we do know is that the KKK did a fundraiser for Darren Wilson. You can read more here:
KKK raising money for Ferguson police officer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/08/19/ku-klux-klan-ferguson-police-michael-brown/14275115/

The KKK also threatened the protesters. You can read more here:
KKK Threatens ‘Lethal Force' Against Ferguson Protesters And Appears on TV To Explain Why http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/kkk-threatens-lethal-force-protesters-ferguson_n_6155570.html

>I don't think that they are trying to hide anything. Grand Juries are confidential by design, and they should remain that way. It is not some conspiracy that they are not public. They serve a valuable function in the justice system. Remember, a grand jury is never going to convict anyone of any crime. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence to charge an individual with a crime, so that the person can then have a trial.

Me: The confusion is who "they" are, and I wasn't referring to the Grand Jury. My point is more about what the AUTHORITIES are trying to hide. Not following police procedure (the Salon article details the missing documents), prosecutorial incompetence (I didn't even mention the "incorrect instructions not valid since 1985&quot , conflicts of interest (Prosecutor is president of an organization that gave $$$ to Wilson), history of racism in handling traffic stops/searches, etc. When the Prosecutor goes to a Grand Jury, it usually takes about a day, and they are trying to CONVINCE them to give an indictment, but that isn't what appears to have happened here.

>However, in this particular case, the prosecutor only brought it before the grand jury under public pressure. The prosecutor was not seeking to indict Wilson, and was merely going through the motions. The prosecutor directs the entire flow of the process and usually controls the outcome.

Me: Yes. He wasted tax payer money going through the motions, and put faith in the whole damn system in jeopardy - WHY?

Ferguson's Prosecutorial Farce
http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/11/fergusons_prosecutorial_farce.html#incart_river
(DU Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025874442)

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Forensic Pathologist Cyril Wecht SHUTS DOWN All Nonsense in Michael Brown Case
(DU Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017228967)

>All of that said, a federal attorney general can still present to a federal grand jury if they feel they have sufficient evidence for federal charges.

Me: We shall see. Hope this helps!

[woolldog]

66. As your own link points out....

there is nothing wrong with your use of the phrase cross examined. Even Lisa Bloom says that Wilson should have been crossed.

[IdaBriggs]

68. Thank you, but I am not a lawyer so I apparently used a word that made sense to me, but not the

folks who work in the field.

I wanted him "aggressively directly examined" which would usually be done as part of a "CROSS examination" in a real trial with him as a Defendant. In this case the Prosecutor acted as a Defense Attorney, and did not point out his inconsistent story telling, and of course, no one held him accountable for his "demon" stuff.

"Do you regularly see Demons when working as a police officer?" <-- That was what I would have expected a prosecutor doing their job to ask.

[Glassunion]

71. Bingo!

The outcome of the Grand Jury was exactly what the State wanted.

The prosecution did not want an indictment. They presented their case in exactly the right way to ensure that would happen. They presented exculpatory evidence, then soft-balled or omitted other damning evidence.

[woolldog]

72. well

Lisa Bloom certainly works in the field. She is an attorney. You are free to use the phrase "cross examined"

[IdaBriggs]

73. Thank you! I think she is using it because that is what Prosecutors usually do with Defendants.

And when the Prosecutor is in front of a Grand Jury, they are there to CONVINCE THE GRAND JURY to indict.

(Unless they work in Ferguson - apparently the rules there are different!)

I very much appreciate your contribution in this thread - you seem very knowledgeable about the process!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

76. Endless "buts" "what if" "wait just a minute" reminds me of Trayvon Martin, who was simply

hunted down and shot to death for being the wrong color in a neighborhood.

Same thing seemed to happen here, but if Brown is the wrong color for his neighborhood, where in the hell is he supposed to go?