OK, suppose for the moment that Wilson's shooting was justified.

[Jackpine Radical]

What should McCullough have done?

The answer is simple. He should have adhered to standard prosecutorial practice in presenting information to the Grand Jury.

He did not.

First, because of his various connections to the case and his personal history, he should have stepped aside and let someone else run the show.

Worse, he let himself get sucked in as a participant in the media circus that was so industriously spewing flak, manipulating public opinion, & contaminating witness testimony in various ways.

Even worse, he used nonstandard methods that could be (and have been widely) construed as seeking to influence the outcome toward a No True Bill finding.

The combination of factors here, all attributable to the faulty judgment of the prosecutor, have led to an indeterminate situation from which neither clarity nor justice can emerge.

The full and true story is now obscured under the fog of misinformation, disinformation, and bad information for all of history.

A significant portion of America will never believe that the killing was justified. Another significant portion will forever believe the Wilson version. Another rift has been torn in the social fabric. A bad one.

All because the prosecutor, the police, and the media ganged up to make it so.

[Calista241]

1. I still don't understand why people went bananas over McCullough.

And they went after McCullough from day 1. The main premise they came up with was that he has family members that were cops, and his father was killed in the line of duty as a cop. And that this was perceived as a conflict that McCullough could not overcome and do his job.

Are we saying that family members of cops aren't suitable to be prosecutors because of potential bias? Does this methodology apply to any other profession? What about judges? What about politicians?

[PADemD]

2. Aren't family members of cops usually excused from

Juries that sit for criminal cases?

[louis-t]

3. No, they were saying he would do exactly what he did.

That is, act as a de facto defense attorney for the shooter, do what he could to block an indictment, have his office give bad instructions to the jury, hold back evidence, discredit witnesses that made 'his client' look bad. Now it looks like his assistant gave the jury an outdated and unconstitutional law as a guideline for shooting a fleeing suspect.

[IdaBriggs]

14. ^== This.

[Enthusiast]

22. +1 an entire shit load.

[uponit7771]

88. +1

[Bettie]

90. What Louis-t said

He acted as a defense attorney, which was not his function.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. OK, does this help?

(Apparently I, along with half the media, have been misspelling McCulloch's name)
Quotes from Wikipedia

Here's where he inappropriately helped the cops identify a whistlebolwer in their ranks

In 1997, in the so-called "Kinkogate" case, McCulloch gave - using the power of the grand jury, but without informing it - a subpoena to the police in order to identify a whistleblower who was acting lawfully. He first claimed the fax contained a threat but later conceded that there was no threat and no crime, but denied any wrongdoing. The whistleblower had to quit his job.[3]

Here is where he previously covered up a cop killing:

In 2000, in the so-called "Jack in the Box" case, two undercover officers, a police officer and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officer, shot and killed two unarmed black men in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant in Berkeley, Missouri. In 2001, the officers told a grand jury convened by McCulloch that the suspects tried to escape arrest and then drove toward them; the jury declined to indict.[2][4] McCulloch told the public that every witness had testified to confirm this version, but St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Michael Sorkin reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes, released to him by McCulloch, and found that McCulloch's statement was untrue: only three of 13 officers testified that the car was moving forward.[3] A subsequent federal investigation found that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots; nevertheless, federal investigators decided that the shooting was justified because the officers feared for their safety.[2][4] McCulloch also drew controversy when he said of the victims: "These guys were bums."[2] The two men killed, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley, had prior felony convictions on drug and assault charges.[2]

There's more if you need it.

[KingCharlemagne]

9. First of all, it's "McCulloch". If you do not understand by now, it is

because you do not really want to understand.

Just to give you one idea to noodle on. After this case is over, McCulloch must continue to work with the local constablulary. In order to work with them, he must preserve good relations with them. You don't think that creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest? McCulloch can ill afford to have the county constabulary hostile to his office because he went after Wilson aggressively.

Thus, the need for a Special Prosecutor with ZERO ties to local law enforcement.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. It's misspelled in half the news stories floating around. I corrected myself above.

What you say is true of any such case; I would argue that a special prosecutor or some such needs to be brought into any case where the local authorities are too interdependent. That would include all police-wrongdoing cases.

[KingCharlemagne]

13. Journalism has really gone to hell in the 50-odd years I've been an adult. First rule

when I was a print journalist: make sure you the reporter spell people's names correctly! Second rule: make sure you give them the accurate title or descriptor. (This falls under the 'Who' portion of the so-called Five Ws of reporting.)

People who still act mystified why the black community does not trust McCulloch appear so mainly because they choose not to dig very deeply, imo. It's not enough for a D.A. to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in such cases. He or she must avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest when the integrity of the criminal justice system is at stake.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. It's one of my deep, dark secrets that, far back in my past, I once committed

many random & senseless acts of journalism.

[daleanime]

18. And that's exactly what we need....

"many random & senseless acts of journalism."

[riqster]

20. That is a brilliant turn of phrase!

[Voice for Peace]

54. hear hear, here!

a special prosecutor or some such needs to be brought into any case where the local authorities are too interdependent. That would include all police-wrongdoing cases.

[branford]

64. An actual conflict of interest is different from an appearance of a conflict.

The former mandates withdrawal from a case, and with the latter, removal is often discretionary.

Virtually no prosecutor (or any politician), R or D, abdicates responsibility or power unless they are legally required to do so. I was therefore not surprised that McCulloch did not withdraw. Apparently, given his time as the elected District Attorney, and the fact that he was just reelected to another 4 year term this month, the citizens of St. Louis County are satisfied with him. It was also a no win proposition. If McCulloch had lost, a Republican would have won, and I doubt he would have been any more motivated to indict a police officer as on of his first acts of office.

Only political pressure could have forced McCulloch to act differently in the Wilson grand jury (or seek charges without the grand jury), and he believed that his choices were the most politically advantageous despite any protests. I'm curious what his polling approval is today among his actual constituency.

[KingCharlemagne]

70. Because of his hubris and arrogance, McCulloch himself now stands indicted

before the bar of the decent opinion of mankind. I can't imagine what power would be worth that ignominy but certainly DA of St. Louis County hardly justifies being damned for all eternity. McCulloch's name risks joining that of such other illustrious state functionaries as Eichmann and Kreisler and all because he would not abdicate responsibility voluntarily.

Sorry to engage in what may sound like hyperbole, but I feel this is that serious.

[branford]

74. I don't doubt the sincerity of you beliefs or necessarily agree with McCulloch's choices.

I was just pointing out that prosecutors' inherent relationship with police is not an actual conflict of interest mandating that prosecutors must always withdraw from cases involving police officers.

An actual conflict would be more akin to something like the officer charged was a familial relation of the district attorney.

[truedelphi]

86. Having a conscience might have helped him in his presentation.

Having spent twenty years of my life seeing how the DA's get to manufacture facts, allow the cops to torture people into confessions for crimes they did not commit, arrange for a loving father and husband to be indicted and convicted for murder of a beloved child, as he was the "handiest suspect," just because that man could have done it (neighbors did investigating and later on uncovered the real criminal) etc, I think it is high time to have rules and regulations for grand juries.

But since it all starts with the police, it is also high time for them to wear cameras in their lapels that record all their interactions with people.

Such camera lenses can be as small as half the size of my pinkie's fingernail, yet the resolution of the video is awesome.

(BTW, coincidental to t he timing of the Ferguson Grand Jury report, the UN Committee on Human Rights found the City of Chicago and its police department to be guilty of torture, in the way people are treated if they happen to be poor and/or have dark skin color.)

[branford]

87. I also happen to support use of police cameras,

although acknowledge that concerns about officers' and citizens' privacy rights are certainly valid and they are not always the panacea that some may believe.

Ironically, police cameras often favor the police officers and are supported in many departments. Suspects often make serious allegations against officers about harassment, undue force or worse, both for purposes of creating doubt about their crimes and seeking civil awards. Cameras eviscerate these often unfounded allegations, as well as act as clear visual evidence against defendant. In the more normal and routine course of events, and the Brown shooting is hardly representative of the vast, vast majority of police interactions with the public, cameras help ensure convictions of defendants, protect localities from civil liability and maintain the reputations and safety of officers.

Police cameras are an instance of "be careful what you wish for." Ubiquitous cameras might prevent the rare Brown situation, by proving a murder, exonerating the officer or acting as an overall deterrent, but they may also result in an increased number of young minority men in prison and fewer options for defense counsel.

I wonder how many here would actually change their opinions if Wilson was wearing a camera and it proved he was assaulted by Brown?

[Rex]

16. Who is McCullough?

[Xipe Totec]

19. Absolutely it does!

Cops aren't suitable to be prosecutors of cops because of potential bias.

Oh, you betcha yeah.

Judges are required to recuse themselves in cases where there are familial, amical, or pecuniary relations to the plaintiff or the defendant.

And politicians, well, who cares. They should be barred period.

[ncjustice80]

25. He should not be allowed to touch any case with a police officer as a "victim" or a suspect.

His father was allegedly "murdered" by an african american.

[JDPriestly]

28. My view is that a local prosecutor -- elected or not -- has a conflict of interest when he has

to present a case against a police officer to either a grand jury or a preliminary hearing judge.

The prosecutor works with the police in most of his/her cases. The police officers' reports are vital information for him/her in his daily life, in his career. The police officers are his/her most important witnesses in many cases.

When a prosecutor is required to present facts that incriminate or reflect negatively on a police officer, it is as if he is presenting them against someone on his own staff, one of his own investigators. That presents the possibility of conflict of interest.

And the ethical standards that lawyers must follow in their work require waivers and other procedures in situations in which their could be a conflict of interest. In some cases, a conflict of interest prohibits the lawyer from representing a certain client.

I think that should be the case when prosecutors are faced with presenting a claim or the possibility of an indictment against one of the officers in a police force that they work with.

So it isn't about McCulloch for me. It is about the ethics of the situation. I think that the governor should have appointed a different attorney, a different, independent office to represent the People before the grand jury.

Edited to correct the spellling of McCulloch's name.

[Hoyt]

31. I think you are right. Unfortunately, McCulloch was just part to the fix, there was no intention of

indicting Wilson, just putting on a show that would hopefully quell some anger.

[truedelphi]

89. Totally excellent post. n/t

[morningfog]

30. And he helped raise money for Darren wilson! That's worse.

[Demsrule86]

41. This guy is not suitable

He has never ....not once...made a cop take responsibility for his actions...personally I believe we may see the prosecutor in jail and disbarred for his actions...and we need to take the responsibility for indicting an prosecuting cops away from the states an let the feds handle it... I think that prosecutor was a racist piece of crap...as are the cops I personally know including a family member.

[Nye Bevan]

5. If a prosecutor has had a family member who was murdered,

should that prosecutor recuse himself from all murder cases?

If someone burglarized his house years ago, should he recuse himself from all burglaries?

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Read my #4 above & try again.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. McCulloch's father was a cop killed in the line of duty by a black assailant. That

creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not an actual conflict itself.

[LostInAnomie]

24. So, he should recuse himself every time a black guy kills a white guy?

What about every time a black guy robs/rapes/threatens/assaults/etc. a white victim? Does he have to recuse himself then too?

Not everyone is as invested in identity politics as DU seems to be right now.

[KingCharlemagne]

26. Nice attempt at deflection, Sparky. Just ignore the fact that the alleged assailant in this

case was a cop and that McCulloch's father was a cop killed in the line of duty.

[LostInAnomie]

39. And?

I didn't ignore it. I pointed out how specious the reasoning behind it was.

[KingCharlemagne]

40. Sigh. Sure you did. All of us calling for McCulloch to recuse himself

because of either the appearance of conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest are simply engaged in 'specious reasoning' and should bow down and submit to your superior intellect.

[LostInAnomie]

44. Just because a bunch of like minded people think the same thing...

... doesn't mean they are correct.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. Yes or No: Do you, LostinAnomie, think McCulloch should have recused himself? Why or

why not?

[LostInAnomie]

67. Unless you've got some real evidence of conflict of interest...

... other than conjecture that McCulloch can't be fair because his father was killed by a black man, then no.

Edit: and by evidence I mean as defined by the bar association or some kind of respected legal body.

[KingCharlemagne]

71. How's this for conflict of interest: McCulloch's office is responsible for bringing cases that

rely on the work of various county law enforcement officers. The fair, impartial administration of justice depends upon those law enforcement officers cooperating with McCulloch and his staff. So if McCulloch goes after Wilson aggressively, he risks damaging that collegial relationship between himself and county law enforcement. Thus, there is the appearance of a conflict: McCulloch must pursue cases against law enforcement but also must depend on law enforcement. To me, that appearance of conflict trumps any Oedipal or familial conflict (although I have no idea whether such a 'political' concern satisfies the bar association standard you reference).

[LostInAnomie]

73. Pretty flimsy.

No prosecutor in the country would ever be allowed to prosecute a police officer if a general working relationship with LEOs counts as a conflict of interests.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Jeez, that's not even a Straw Man.

It's an IMAGINARY straw man.

[LostInAnomie]

43. Do you even know what a strawman is?

Because your post is screaming that you don't.

[Voice for Peace]

51. It's not specious at all, it's common sense.

It takes a bit of self awareness, to recognize that we
have biases of all kinds, and that they affect our
choices and our judgement, day in and day out --
whether we are aware of it or not.

It's certainly fundamental in the human psyche: our
life experiences color & prejudice our perspectives.

An early life message in that prosecutor's brain, which
no doubt influences him today: policeman good,
black man bad, dangerous. Black man hurt good man,
hurt me too.

[LostInAnomie]

58. Removing a prosecutor for something that happened to his dad...

... isn't common sense at all. In fact, it would be a horrible precident that would only serve to invalidate prosecutors across the country. All a defense attorney would have to do is find out about something that happened in the prosecutor's or their family's past and they would be off the case.

Prosecutor's dad was killed by a black man? Can't trust him to fairly prosecute black men.

Prosecutor's son was a victim of a hit and run by a Latino? Can't trust him to fairly prosecute Latinos.

Prosecutor was a rape victim? Well, how can we trust her to prosecute men fairly?

Prosecutor used to be a cop? No way we can ever trust him not to throw a case against a cop!

This is why identity politics is ruining DU. We are so consumed with how certain people can't be trusted because of race that it dooms any chance for an actual discussion. Somehow, if it doesn't conform to DU's preconceived notions, prejudices, and view on racial dynamics it is automatically illegitimate.

[Voice for Peace]

81. sorry, misunderstanding... my opinion was he should have recused himself

on account of his bias. Out of respect for the dead.

[840high]

35. +1

[Lurks Often]

7. If Wilson's shooting of Brown WAS justified

Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

there was no reason under normal circumstances that it would have gone the Grand Jury in the first place.

[Travis_0004]

8. If tbe shooting was justifier he should have dropped the charges

There shouldnt be a grand jury at all if its obvious the shooting is justified.

[branford]

65. I couldn't agree more.

McCulloch brought the case to the grand jury, including all the expulpatory testimony and evidence that was not legally required, simply as political cover.

His actions were deceptive and confusing, but perfectly legal.

[rhett o rick]

12. I would add one thing to your excellent post.

I would have followed, "What should McCullough have done." with "if he thought Wilson was justified."

"What should McCullough have done if he thought Wilson was justified."

Just for clarification of your point.

I agree completely. The prosecutor actions were of someone that thinks Wilson was not justified in killing Michael Brown.

[Voice for Peace]

33. did you mean, thought Wilson WAS justified?

You wrote The prosecutor actions were of someone that thinks Wilson was not justified in killing Michael Brown.

[rhett o rick]

45. No. I completely agree with the OP and was just trying to drive the point home. As the OP explains,

if the prosecutor believed that Wilson was justified in killing Michael Brown, he would have acted completely different than he did (therefore he apparently didn't believe Wilson was justifie). His actions were indicative of someone that thought Wilson wasn't justified.

[Voice for Peace]

47. ok.. this is a little bit of a brain twister for me.

If he had thought Wilson was justified, he would not have
used the Grand Jury?

But since he knew it was unjustified, he took the weaselly
cowardly route, to protect the police, and probably to ensure
re-election by white people?

Am I getting it now?

[robinlynne]

48. yes. He shot a man holding his hands up.

[rhett o rick]

49. Not by my thinking, but I may be wrong. I believe he thinks Wilson was justified

but lacks the courage to make that call. Therefore, he calls a GJ and goes to a lot of trouble to help them come to a decision not to indict to direct the heat from him for letting Wilson get away with murder. Had he thought Wilson was NOT justified, he would simply charged him and taken him to trial.

[Voice for Peace]

52. Either my brain is completely on the blink, or

I agree completely. The prosecutor actions
were of someone that thinks
Wilson was not justified in killing Michael Brown.

or

I believe he thinks Wilson was justified
but lacks the courage to make that call.

I think you are saying both, so .. my point of view:

I think he is on some kind of antidepressant which is making
him very dull witted. He is concerned about his reputation with
the police and whites in general. Deep down he hates black
men who 'threaten' cops. He knew the shooting was probably
unjustified, maybe.. didn't even want to think about it. Too
many painful related emotions. So he chose apathy and giving
up any responsibility. Took the side of the shooter.
Cowardly. Whiny.

[rhett o rick]

53. I have to step back and start over. nm

[rhett o rick]

55. The bottom line is that I agree with the OP. My attempts of helping

may be doing more damage than good.

[Voice for Peace]

56. lol

[Scuba]

17. Another excellent post from one of DU's finest members. Thanks Jackpine.

[riqster]

21. What Scuba said.

[rhett o rick]

50. What riqster said that Scuba said. Just sayin'.

[Enthusiast]

23. Kicked and recommended!

Way to go, Jackpine Radical!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. The narrative that "All 'those people' understand is force",...

....is used by idiots who only understand force,...

....and who act like anything 'less than' force is 'showing weakness'.

[Oktober]

29. It is still within his ethical and legal purview...

... to do it the way he did.

Just because most prosecutors are out for the win no matter what, doesn't mean that it is standard across the board.

[Rex]

32. Um...no...prosecutors don't even form a GJ unless they want to indict someone

so in fact you are completely wrong.

[Lurks Often]

34. Your post ignores the political and public pressures involved in this case

If McCulloch had NOT brought an indictment, people, here and other places, would have gone even more nuts then they already have.

[Flatulo]

37. And yet almost no one believes that this was an honest proceeding,

with the goal of bringing charges.

Even if you believe that Wilson's actions were justified, surely anyone with a brain can see that the GJ process was a sham.

[Lurks Often]

38. It was an atypical Grand Jury investigation

so to think it was going to proceed under normal Grand Jury procedures isn't especially reasonable.

You had a DA that did not want to press charges so why does anyone think he was going to be energetic in his efforts to get an indictment?

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Correct. In fact, the way in which he used the GJ suggests in itself

that he was just employing it to put distance between himself and the decision not to indict.

[Lurks Often]

57. It was compromise

McCulloch didn't think the evidence warranted taking the case to trial, but recognized that politically and publicly failing to do anything wasn't going to work either, so he did an evidence dump on the Grand Jury and let them sort it out.

Or he was covering for the PD, but recognized that politically and publicly failing to do anything wasn't going to work either, so he did an evidence dump on the Grand Jury and let them sort it out.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. When a great deal of the evidence is already known to be false or misleading,

and the prosecutor gives incorrect instructions to the jury, and a few things like that, the simple "evidence dump" theory is not very appealing.

[Lurks Often]

60. Shrug, never said my theory was going to be appealing

[Jackpine Radical]

62. "appealing"="likely to be valid." (nt)

[marym625]

36. I was afraid to click on this

But then I thought, "it's Jack. Can't be what I think it could be. " And I was right.

K&R sadly, so true

I can't believe there are people here that are trying to justify the actions of this "prosecutor." I have read much of the testimony and the only person being prosecuted was Michael Brown.

[branford]

68. "Explaining" or "understanding" is not justifying.

If someone is not with you, they are not necessarily against you.

It is apparent that many people do not understand the role, obligations and duties of either a grand jury or a prosecutor.

McCulloch did not have an actionable actual conflict of interest mandating withdrawal and his behavior in the grand jury was not in violation of any canon of professional ethics. If either was true, there are a number of parties, including the DOJ, that would have sought judicial intervention long ago. Their silence speaks volumes. There are far too many armchair lawyers on DU who are spreading incorrect information and bad advice.

However, with all that said, that does not mean anyone has to like or respect McCulloch and his choices. If he really wanted to charge Wilson, he could have avoided the grand jury altogether or targeted his presentation to virtually guarantee an indictment. This was clearly not his aim. However, due to the broad powers of prosecutorial discretion, he had no obligation to seek an indictment at all.

McCulloch should have had the courage of his purported convictions and stated that his investigation did not lead him to believe that Wilson committed any crime. His using the grand jury for political cover was cowardly, but lawful.

[marym625]

72. "Responding" isn't "understanding"

Thank you for your condescending response but I understand what the role of the prosecutor is and what the Grand Jury is for.

How pretentious of you. Looks like you're playing "arm chair lawyer."

I also understand that people can understand or justify without agreeing with me. I can also agree with this post and not agree with anything else the poster thinks or believes.

There is nothing incorrect about what I stated

What a blowhard.

[branford]

75. Blowhard? Look in the mirror.

You wrote the post complaining of too many people "justify[ing] the actions of this 'prosecutor,'" when in actuality most simply are not willing to accept anything simply because it comports with their ideology or expresses what they demanded happen in the grand jury.

With respect to myself, review the vast majority of my posts concerning McCulloch. I've not "justified" anything, usually just corrected the vast morass of misinformation. However, to many, including apparently yourself, proving accurate legal information is little more that defending Wilson or McCulloch.

And for the record, I'm not an "arm chair lawyer." As I've indicated before concerning this and other matters, I'm an actual lawyer. I'm been a trial attorney in NYC for over 17 years, and before that, worked at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

[marym625]

76. Your reply to me was condescending

There was no reason or call for it.

Since when is giving an unconstitutional law to jurors the roll of the prosecutor? It doesn't matter that it was eventually "corrected" because it didn't allow for the jurors to ask questions based on the law eventually passed out. McCulloch should be disbarred for misconduct. It's his office and he doesn't get to play innocent in that.

There is no justification for that. And there was nothing wrong with what I said.

[branford]

78. Why exactly should he or the presenting prosecutors be disbarred?

If the question was whether the issue about the law before the grand jury was stupid or possibly even deceitful, I would readily agree. However, it would not normally merit a disciplinary proceeding, and if it did, the worst punishment would likely be a warning. Disbarment for any of the related attorneys would be considered ludicrous. Opposing the prosecution of Wilson, however, is not in any way an ethical violation, and any remedial action would simply mandate a new grand jury that will still controlled by McCulloch. It would have the same result.

If I need to be even more clear, I have no doubts that McCulloch intentionally tanked the grand jury to ensure that they would not indict. One hardly needs legal training to observe something so obvious. Nevertheless, the bounds and breadth of prosecutorial discreation is immense, and McCulloch's and his assistants' conduct before the grand jury was entirely lawful, if equally loathsome.

A prosecutor is under no obligation to seek charges in any potentially criminal matter, nor even advocate a vote for indictment when a matters goes before a grand jury. McCulloch did not want to prosecute this case. Rather than stand by his apparent convictions, and simply not move forward, he (lawfully) manipulated the grand jury to provide him with some political cover. Such conduct is not entirely unknown, and has occurred in other difficult self-defense and police shooting cases.

Understanding that McCulloch's actions were lawful and did not violate any rules of professional conduct, or even if any rules were violated, they would be considered very minor infractions, is most certainly not a defense of McCulloch, Wilson, grand juries or anyone or anything else. It's simply an acknowledgment of the rules and procedures employed in our criminal justice system and manipulated by district attorneys across the nation who are really just local politicians like any other.

To accept that this is in fact the system that is in place, does not mean anyone is justifying the particular result of this grand jury or McCulloch's conduct, or preventing anyone from seeking to change the rules or procedures. However, if one complains about a system or seeks to change it, it not unreasonable to suggest that they should have a proper understanding of the system, not rely on misinformation, emotion, rumor or innuendo.

[marym625]

79. I understand that it is difficult to disbar

And I don't believe for a second that he will even be disciplined. That doesn't change the fact he broke the rules and should be punished for it. I believe his entire process was tainted. And that is the question, was it deceitful. Reading the transcript it seems that it was intentional and the "correction" itself was both too late and not entirely correct.

How is such an egregious error, more than probable an intentional one, "completely lawful"?

He is the prosecutor. Regardless of anything else, he acted like a defense attorney. In that, he should lose his job. The people of the State of Missouri put him there to protect them, not protect a police officer that shot one of Missouri's citizens.

You are wrong that no one is investigating his actions. The National Bar Association is as well as other legal scholars. Whether or not it will amount to anything, we will have to wait and see.

We don't know, including you, that the DOJ isn't investigating him and how he conducted this particular case.

And still, nothing I said in my original reply was wrong or worthy of your condescension.

[branford]

82. The duties and obligations of prosecutors and defense attorneys are very different.

A defense attorney, for all intent and purposes, should and must do everything within ethical bounds (e.g., no perjury, destroying evidence, etc.) to advocate the interests of his or her client, usually an acquittal or good plea bargain.

A prosecutor, however, is not bound to seek a conviction, rather only that "justice" be done, even if that includes no prosecution at all. In fact, if he does not believe the evidence can support a conviction, it would be unethical to even take a case to trial. This prosecutorial discretion is incredibly broad and subject to few limitations.

Whether McCulloch actually broke any rules with the offering the particular law to the grand jury, and if so, properly mitigated any error, is uncertain, and I would leave any opinion to other counsel more learned in Missouri criminal law and procedure. However, I doubt it made very much of a difference in light of the prosecution's overall presentation. I find it akin to what would be "harmless error" in an actual trial, no matter how galling or intentional McCulloch's acts.

The other more pertinent issue is who would have standing to complain, to whom would they seek redress, and what remedial action could be taken. A comparative trial error is subject to appeal by the defendant or prosecutor. Since Wilson benefited by the alleged error, he certainly would not complain to anyone. I also don't believe (but here I'm not an expert) that a member of the general public, or even the victim's family who was not a party to the proceeding, has standing to challenge the grand jury process in the court. There is just no right that a prosecutor seek an indictment. My guess is that the only way to challenge the grand jury proceedings is by a local investigative body such as the MO AG, and only then for provable illegality like bribery, blackmail, suborning perjury, etc.

Mistakes (or intentional acts) like the one you cite normally aren't considered ethical violations without long and established conduct and definitive proof of intent. The Wilson grand jury "anomaly" would hardly meet such a standard.

In the event of some due deliberative body holding that the admission of the old law was improper and some remedy warranted, such remedy would most likely be a new grand jury. Since nothing about the issue would mandate disqualification of McCulloch, particularly since bias against a prosecution is entirely permissible by the district attorney, it would simply be a rehash of the same evidence and intent that produced the original no bill. Heck, there would be nothing stopping McCulloch from only presenting expulatory witnesses, praising Wilson in front of the grand jury, and recommending they vote him hero of the year. Simply, McCulloch is well within his authority to act like a defense counsel or worse.

You are correct that I most certainly do not know for certain that the DOJ or MO AG are not investigating McCulloch. However, I feel very confident that the powers that be know there are few, if any, true legal or ethical problems, and more importantly, there is no way to remove McCulloch or force him to more diligently pursue an indictment without new and stronger information. Given the protests and violence, the DOJ would be running to accuse McCulloch of any improprieties if the allegations could be sustained in court.

Additionally, bar associations have no special authority or standing to challenge grand juries or anything else. They are professional associations, not empowered ethical guardians or licensing authorities. Also, do not confuse the National Bar Association, an long-standing association of predominantly African-American attorneys, with the far larger and significantly more influential American Bar Association. It is a common mistake.

As to your claims about my purported "condescension," note that you were the one claiming that too many on this thread were "justifying" the actions of the "prosecutor." Most of these so-called justifications were only questioning the actual legal and factual reasons for allegations against McCulloch and inquiring if the grand jury really did anything legally wrong. Acknowledging that McCulloch was exercising his authority, even in a manner many here find very disagreeable, and that his conduct is not a basis for disciplinary action or worse, is not justifying his actions on a moral level.

Understanding the system and the realistic options as they now exist does not constitute support for McCulloch or Wilson, rather it is engaging in discussion of real world politics, law, etc. Speaking or writing the truth is not condemnable. The correct understanding of the system that produced these results is also necessary and prudent if people wish change the system or prevent a repetition.

[marym625]

83. There you go again

Rather assumptive of you to think I don't understand the difference between the ABA and the NBA. I am not a lawyer but I have been working in law for decades. I am a licensed paralegal and do quite a bit of research. I am well aware of the differences. I am also aware of the differences in obligations of prosecutor and defense.

The ABA is also looking at McCulloch and the possibility of misconduct. They are also working with the DOJ trying to have federal charges brought against Wilson.

As far as what I said in my original reply, I was talking about all of DU. You seem to believe that the response to the OP, which is not at all about law but what was done to create a situation wherein the truth may never be known, must only be responded to with fact, law and zero emotion My response was to the subject of the OP and what he said. It was not about whether or not McCulloch had the right to act like Wilson's attorney. You can justify it all you want but your initial response to me was uncalled for.

Thing is, on the facts, we mostly agree. What should be done, what can be done and who can do it. Minimally, there should be a new grand jury, with a special prosecutor. But I believe that the unconstitutional law being handed out was deliberate and should be, minimally, disciplined for it.

I would think that the fact McCulloch, in 21 years, has never once brought charges against a police officer, would at the very least, warrant investigation. Because this is the only high profile case, we don't know if there is a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. Yet.

[marym625]

80. and by the way

Whether or not every single thing Mculloch did was lawful, his actions in this case are not justifiable when it comes to the question of him seeking a true bill from the Grand Jury. He didn't try to and that is what I was talking about

[truedelphi]

61. Thirty six replie so far, and no one is mentioning how

prosecuter McCullough ws the President of the organization collecting monies from the public on behalf of Officer Wilson. And those monies totalled oer $ 400,000!! So you have to wonder if some of the witnesses changed their testimony to go from supporting Michael Brown to backing away from support, did some money change hands?

[branford]

69. Do you have any evidence of bribery? If so, contact the DOJ immediately.

There have been many threads on DU concerning the organization purportedly receiving money on behalf of Wilson that is allegedly connected to McCulloch. The actual facts are not nearly as clear or incriminating as you imply. If they were, McCulloch would have been legally disqualified from the case through judicial action.

[truedelphi]

84. Last time I looked, this was a discussion board.

I am not under oath, and I am allowed to speculate.

Mr McC was the prosecuter, supposedly acting on behal of the Brown family, and he basically fabricated in the many scenarios he made up, including one in which a report was put on paper, listing Wilson as an "assault victim" and Brown as the "perp" and this was given to the jury to consider!

So he made shit up and mis-represented the material that should have been made avaiulable to the grand jury. Since we all know he did this, it does not take a great leap of faith to realize he might have bribed people as well.

[branford]

85. Read my prior posts in this thread concerning the obligations and duties of a prosecutor,

including their vast discretion, and the role and expectations of a grand jury.

For instance, a prosecutor does not act on behalf of the victim or their family. They represent the State, and are under no obligation to pursue criminal action against anyone.

[Sweeney]

66. Of course the shooting was justified.

Injustice is always justified. Everything just needs no justification because the justice of it is obvious to all.
Sweeney

[BlueStreak]

77. THis isn't the right fight to pick.

There is a huge White-cop-versus-black-community problem all across the country. I don't dispute that for a second. But this particular case is not the one to latch onto. There is a very reasonable case in support of the officer. Clearly he could have handled it differently and Brown would/should be alive today. But Brown is not a very good poster buy, and making this a cause celebre actually makes it harder to get attention on the system race issues that this country has with law enforcement.

Hell, this wasn't even to worst shooting in Ferguson. The cold-blooded murder of Kajieme Powell is a much worse example, IMHO, yet nobody even wants to talk about that one.