General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMissouri AG Confirms Michael Brown Grand Jury Misled by St. Louis DA
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349421/-Missouri-AG-Confirms-Michael-Brown-Grand-Jury-Misled-by-St-Louis-DA?detail=email#Subsequent to a previous report from Lawrence O'Donnell the Missouri Attorney General has confirmed with Last Word that they instructions given the Michael Brown Grand Jury describing the Police "use of force" laws was incorrect and misleading.
The background of this situation is that Lawrence O'Donnell reported that after reviewing the transcripts of the Darren Wilson Grand Jury, his analyst discovered that Assistant District Attorney's working for Bob McCullough gave the Jurors an outdated copy of Missouri Law that all that was required for an Officer to use deadly force is their "reasonable belief" that there was a threat.
In 1985 the Supreme Court amended this law to include a "probable cause" requirement under Tennessee v Garner and the Jury wasn't informed of this until 3 months later just before their deliberations, nor even at that time was the difference and relevance of this explained to them clearly.
The misleading information was given to the Grand Jury directly before Darren Wilson's testimony giving the impression that all that was required under the law for Wilson to kill Michael Brown was his belief that he was in danger, without the additional requirement of probable cause for such a belief.
The Missouri AG now proclaims that was wrong and the Missouri Law needs to be changed and updated to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling.
-----------
So what is the MO Attorney General prepared to do about it?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I would hope --
1) empanel a new grand jury and
2) investigate the DA to determine if malfeasance or incompetence is at work (both grounds for removal, the former grounds for prosecution).
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The criminals are in power in St Louis
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Hopefully from downstate, far away from the corrupt goons in Ferguson and St. Louis.
gordianot
(15,226 posts)You do not need good luck you need excellent luck.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)You pick someone around St. Louis, you get the same corruption. I doubt if EVERY prosecutor South of St. Louis is KKK.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)
true justice is always a possibility, no matter how it is arrived at or dispensed. Zimmerman, wilsonthepig, the Eric Garner murderers, the walmart caller and killers and many other state sanctioned murderers/executioners since Trayvon Martin's murder, all of them know, in their heart of hearts, that true justice WILL catch up with them one day, somehow. I believe.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)and sanction of whom? Simple answer/deduction watson, really.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Telling your boss what you're up to, I wouldn't take it for granted.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)investigation conclusion either. I really don't take anything for granted. I just know the players involved in both these 'investigations and they cannot be trusted to have followed proper procedure, principle or the truth and in the case of ferguson, I know who guided the two assistants providing the 'lets exonerate wilson evidence'. That's all I needed to know.
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)In life or death it seems
Response to RockaFowler (Reply #2)
Post removed
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Much appreciated.
Oh, and good luck with finding it.....
heaven05
(18,124 posts)like that one, I'm not surprised at that ones answer.....
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)fucking ignorant statement!
If you had said shoplifted, you may have a point.
But what you said is ignorant fucking bullshit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And by the way, the store owner isn't sure it was Michael Brown, how can you be so sure? Oh yeah, I know.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the conservatives from labeling him a thief.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Hey, if Ken Lay could die "an innocent man" after being convicted but not yet sentenced, I think we should afford the same consideration to a guy who was, in essence, murdered by police for walking in the middle of the street.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)We have video and a friend witness him commit the crime, but you say he is innocent until proved guilty. Then, in the very next breath convict the officer. And you don't see the hypocrisy?
I see yours though.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I pointed out hypocrisy. I NEVER endorsed any view. Nice try though. That is becoming a popular defense mechanism (accuse the person of something terrible, thereby shifting the conversation, at worst or automatically discrediting the other person because of the terrible item, at best).
heaven05
(18,124 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Who had the gun?
Who pumped several bullets into a body that was far, far away from the vehicle the officer was riding in?
Whose "camp" was so desperate to portray the officer as a victim that they circulated a picture of a complete stranger in the hospital and tried to pass off that guy's injuries as those sustained by the officer?
What about that contemporaneous tape of the workers saying "He had his hands UP, man?" I'm betting the grand jury didn't see that, either...
http://gawker.com/witnesses-to-michael-brown-shooting-he-had-his-fuckin-1633506321
He just kept shooting. His hands were up.
These men don't live in Ferguson and they don't know the Brown family.
The video, taken minutes after the shooting, would appear to be congruent with previous eyewitness reports that not only was Brown unarmed, but that he had also put his hands up in clear surrender and Wilson fired anyway.
There was no justice in that case. That officer used poor judgment. Bottom line--the guy was no where near him when he shot him the last time and killed him. The policeman had a car--if he were truly "afraid," howzabout getting IN that po-po car, locking the door, and throwing it into reverse while calling for backup? The officer failed. He could have easily de-escalated even an aggressive situation, instead, he aggravated it and he got away with murder. He was a shitty, shitty police--I hope he never knows peace, and this murder--and it was a murder, in cold, cold blood--haunts him every frigging day of his life.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I am saying we have video evidence and his friend admitting that yes it was them on film. In the face of this, they still said he was innocent because he wasn't proved guilty. I am fine with that,but the same logic needs to be applied with the officer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And justice has a lot of miscarriages when young black men are involved.
That's just fact.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)"We never saw the body.....!!!!!"
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Brown was never indicted for theft.
Even if he was proven guilty, is the penalty death?
Even in less civilized countries, the penalty for theft is losing a hand, not your life.
And Wilson was not supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)even 'robbing' a store is not a death sentence.
wilson had a thousands choices after he fired his first two shots. But he chose to emerge from his vehicle without back up and teach this N5gger a lesson. I dont believe brown was charging him honestly. I believe the humungous ego of wilson and 'the badge' realized he was in deep shit for grossly mishandling _everything_ and decided to kill this kid so his story would be the only one out there.
Logical
(22,457 posts)FarPoint
(12,207 posts)You are indeed in the woods.
bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)or just this one? If he actually did take the cigarillos; but then you never really have to ask after the suspect is dead.
Most of us live long lives, with plenty of choices good and bad. I've made my fair share of both, and part of growing up is learning the difference. I got the chance to, and I think I've made a pretty good life from lessons learned. Brown never got the chance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)knowledge of the shoplifting or theft prior to killing Brown.
Even if he did, neither shoplifting or resisting arrest and then running away are to be punished by a death sentence.
Wilson should have waited for back-up before backing up his car and engaging with Johnson and Brown. It's a matter of not just common sense but of good police practices.
What was Wilson's state of mind when he backed up his car and then opened his car door so as to hit Brown? Was he trying to pick a fight with Brown, trying to get an excuse to escalate the tense situation?
What is the duty of a police officer? Is it to aggravate bad situations? Or is it to try to bring peace to those who are angry? Is it to protect human life? Or is is to make the arrest as soon as possible and as often as possible?
Should a police officer without the assistance of another officer try to arrest someone who appears to be angry or belligerent when that angry person is not posing a danger to anyone other than the police officer?
Not all these questions can be answered in a trial. Some can. But all of them need to be raised in our country. We are having too many altercations between police and citizens that end in violence and killings or injuries caused by the police.
Brown was unarmed. He was hit by the door of Wilson's car. This case is not so simple.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I wish you would get lost.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)subject on?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)avebury
(10,946 posts)file complaints against the Prosecutors with the Missouri Bar Association and for the MO Bar Assn to take some type of action against them.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Really, it's not illegal for a prosecutor to decide not to pursue a case. It's called prosecutorial discretion.
There may be mechanisms for a governor or judge to appoint a special prosecutor. But that gets into the details of Missouri law that I don't know about. Every state is different as far as that is concerned.
Ultimately, it's up to the voters whether they want to keep their prosecutor. The voters can toss them out. These guys are elected to 4-year terms.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)Can he go ahead and charge Wilson and proceed to trial?
If I were a St. Louis County, Missouri taxpayer, that's what I would want done. The grand jury was misled and given the information they were provided, could not make a well informed decision.
Rather than let this drag on through another grand jury, just charge Wilson with voluntary manslaughter at the very least and let a regular jury hear the evidence and make a decision.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Florida handled the Trayvon situation a lot better. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor and then that prosecutor skipped the grand jury and went right to the trial. Now, there is argument that the reason they skipped it was because there was fear the grand jury might not indict. And that very well may have been the case because of Florida's very lenient self-defense laws and no visual eye-witness. Plus, the cops were on Zimmerman's side backing up his story. But, politically they knew they needed a trial to make everyone happy even if it was an impossible prosecution.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)After all, Angela Corey was the same prosecutor who persecuted (not a typo) Marissa Alexander for a much lesser crime than George Zimmerman had committed.
The public got to watch the progress in the Zimmerman trial, knew the way the case was going, and was not shocked and outraged they way they were when the non-indictment came down in the Wilson case. We got to be as angry at Corey and her team of incompetents as we were at Zimmerman.
Missouri can still go after Wilson. A grand jury decision is not a trial. Nixon could appoint a special prosecutor, Wilson could have a public trial, and it might help assuage public opinion.
But I think things have gone too far even if Wilson were convicted of Michael Brown's homicide. Too many unarmed black and brown people have been killed by police in incidents that should never have gotten close to lethal force. The images of military type force used against mostly peaceful protestors shocked all of America and the world. It's clear that police need to be brought under control.
We need a change in how our police interact with our citizens - ALL of our citizens.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)In MO the AG works more along the lines of threats to MO Constitution and works on consumer cases, such as tobacco and payday lenders.
If anyone needs a refresher about what Koster can and cannot do just look back to the Daisy Coleman case. Though he was disgusted he couldn't do much. His office issued recommendations but that was all they could do. In this case, federal needs to intervene.
Uben
(7,719 posts)If there ever was a reason to, this is it. The prosecutor can request it...but will he?
lark
(23,003 posts)Seems the verdict has to be stricken and a new grand jury empanelled and the same prosecutor can't be part of the proceedings. there are many things wrong with this, the instructions just being part. Prosecutor also never pointed out the inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony and the fact that his story changed significantly and doesn't jive with the physical evidence.
Question is will the Attorney General actually do anything about this egregious miscarriage of justice? Gives the Brown family a good start for the civil trial I hope they bring against KKK Wilson.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)Another grand jury could indict Wilson - it is not a double jeopardy situation. Depending on the laws, the Attorney General could simply bring charges against Wilson and skip a grand jury. I believe he tried to go the GJ route to side step having to make a choice to charge or not. Well, that failed due to the incompetence of his prosecutors and the ambiguity of the law that had been unconstitutional for decades.
Given the AG's reluctance to take a stance and Governor Nixon's reluctance to lead I doubt Missouri will do anything about charges for Wilson.
spanone
(135,632 posts)PsychGrad
(239 posts)I am not an attorney, but does this mean it can be opened again???? Because that would be amazing! I mean, it sounds like a "mistrial" of sorts considering the jury was wrongly directed?
I'm really not liking living in MO right now. The tension is so thick right now that it's palpable. I know that all of this has to be brought up and discussed and dealt with for change - but it has seriously brought people out of the woodwork that I had NO idea carried around the thoughts that they do. Very disheartening and disappointing, but I guess I am glad that I know now.
Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)I think someone needs to step up to the plate and call for a second one.
PsychGrad
(239 posts)I don't know if it's similar to not being able to be charged twice though. I will have to look it up and research and find out. But I agree, someone needs to do whatever the law allows to get this guy to trial. His account is only one side of it and I am horrified that his account is taken as truth simply bc he is a police officer.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)'double jeopardy' issue involved in the indictments.
PsychGrad
(239 posts)That's what I was hoping to hear!
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I like your idea the best. The AG, him/herself, could indict Wilson outright, since the PA mislead the GJ. That's it.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)with a crime there shouldn't be any double jeopardy, should there? Also the use of a grand jury is just an option isn't it? Grand juries don't even test for guilt or innocence as far as I know, just whether a case is worthy of trial.
... no double jeopardy, as he wasn't indicted. The Grand Jury phase was not a trial. There's a separate process, evidently, when the accused is a police officer.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)For further evidence look back to the Daisy Coleman case last year. Was Koster disgusted? Absolutely, but with the way his "job description" has been written his hands are tied. Brown and Coleman aren't the only cases that have needed something to happen but they are both cases that made national news.
At this stage we need the feds to come in and take over.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... and took over.) But at this point, I'm afraid the Fed is also broken! What we need to do is get the damn hoodlums out of the police depts all over this country. Period.
0rganism
(23,855 posts)what a corrupt piece of filth he turned out to be
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)This D.A. was still putting on his defense of Wilson instead of saying, "... we thought we had a strong case to take to the GJ, we are still looking for additional evidence that will help to secure an indictment in this tragic case..."
angrychair
(8,593 posts)Was not a trial. There is no "double jeopardy". Depending on state law, If evidence changes or new information comes to light than it is possible that a new grand jury could be stood up. A grand jury does not determine guilt, only if current evidence supports moving forward of the charges the DA wants to pursue.
I hope that either the feds pick up the case or the governor names a special prosecutor to pursue a new grand jury.
PsychGrad
(239 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)By Wilsons account, and the physical evidence in the car, there is more than probable cause to believe that Brown posed a danger to him and others. Why you assault an officer and attempt to take their firearm you more than meet that standard.
Had there not been a struggle and attempt to take the officers gun before the shooting than there might be a case that the differing instructions had impact- but that isn't the case.
bluesbassman
(19,309 posts)That's the crux of the matter isn't it? "Wilson's account" needs to be held up to scrutiny before a full trial with a legitimate prosecution, not the kangaroo court that McCullough orchestrated.
PsychGrad
(239 posts)I have no idea why everyone takes his "account" of the situation as stone cold proof and truth. Of course he is going to say he had no choice, his ass is on the line!
angrychair
(8,593 posts)In the context of a grand jury and is awkward at best and procedurally rare. Having the accused give evidence at their own hearing is strange and would and should raise more than a few concerns. Grand jurys normally hear a dozen or more cases for the short time period they are empanelled and most reviews lasting no more than a couple of hours. No guilt is determined, only if enough evidence supports a given charge being pursued by a DA.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)the phsyical evidence also backs up Dorian Johnsons testimony.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)lie about being hit etc..
You can say what you say all you want to, if the law is different then he had no right to chase Brown down and kill him. Nothing can change that fact.
Why does the officer assault Brown? You don't even think that is possible but a criminal trial might say otherwise. Well not now obviously.
avebury
(10,946 posts)they should have immediately collected Wilson's gun in an evidence bag.
The Ferguson PD and County PD have a choice to either go down a the textbook case as corruption or the most incompetent people around. Either choice is not good.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)after walking/pacing around the dead body of Michael Brown, touching and being in very close proximity to body was allowed to drive that police car off, by himself. No chance to tamper with evidence, provide 'new' evidence" corroborating his lies, right? Believe what you may, it was a murder/execution that was carrying out wilsonthepigs summary justice, a type of 'justice' that has been faced by many black americans, male, female, children since this travesty and Trayvon Martin's transpired. How people can be so willfully lenient with racist murderers is beyond my comprehension. Oh but Michael Brown and the rest were "hulking demons" and deserved to die, right? You believe everything that came out of that farce called a GJ proceeding, I expect. Right? But with all the wilsonthepig lovers who have shown up and been here all the time in the last 4+ months and since Trayvon Martin's murder, I'm not surprised at how easy it is for some to deny the truth.....
valerief
(53,235 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)he was shot while fleeing otherwise the law wouldn't be all that important, now would it.
How can you CHARGE someone while fleeing?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)avebury
(10,946 posts)because the idea that it was legal for a cop to shoot at a fleeing suspect had already sunk in.
Furthermore, one of the members asked: Can the Supreme Court overturn a Missouri Law? (This is a Yes/No question).
Female Prosecutor Response: We don't want to go into that.
Other Prosecutor: We don't want to conduct a law class.
Neither of the Prosecutors wanted the GJ panel to realize what they had done and for the GJ Panel to think that is was just an Oops we made a mistake moment. They did not want the grand jurors to realize that they intentionally set out to mislead them and, to be blunt, had flat out lied to them.
Given the fact that 1) Ferguson issued over 25,500 arrest warrants in 2013, 2) the enormous volume of income generated for the City via the "criminal Justice/court system" and 3) given the behavior of McCullough's office with this grand jury hearing - you have to wonder how many defendants that they have railroaded in the past. If I were one of the Defense Attorneys for a case that went thru their system I would be talking to other Defense Attorneys about the possibility of a class action law suit against the Ferguson PD and the Prosecutor's office. I would love to see the DOJ investigate them for possible RICO charges.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Questions like that. They only answered questions specifically related to the evidence presented to us. I felt like I was getting less than 1/2 the whole story.
avebury
(10,946 posts)is related to the proceedings. My understanding is that, in relationship to the Wilson GJ, the members of the Grand Jury panel were able to ask for witnesses that they wanted to hear from. Had I been on the panel I would have had a long list of people to be subpoenaed, including members of the DA's office.
My problem is that the Prosecutor's office went into the GJ hearing and deliberately advocated for Wilson from day one. No other suspect (unless he/she was a cop) would get the same treatment. I really wish that the members of the GJ panel had taken a more proactive role in both the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and evidence. I also wish that they would have called out the Prosecutor's bull shit.
Has I been on this GJ panel I don't know if I could have kept my mouth shut. I would have been torn between speaking up at the time (and probably getting kicked off the panel) and keeping my mouth shut and sitting down at my computer at the end of each hearing daty and making copious notes of what was going on. For sure, I would have been talking to the media at some point.
The Prosecutor's office ran that Grand Jury in such a way as to place the blame for the lack of prosecution on the panel members. The intentionally circumvented the justice system. The panel basically just rolled over and let the Prosecutor's office pull a fast one.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)?????????????????????
Rex
(65,616 posts)Do they call a mulligan?
merrily
(45,251 posts)one. What actually happened was the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, but that does not remove the law from the books.
Maddow was also saying something about a law that allowed an LEO to shoot a fleeing suspect simply because they were attempting to flee having been declared unconstitutional and being mentioned by this prosecutor to this grand jury. And, though the information was corrected near the end of the proceeding, it had been on the table for weeks, as the jurors heard testimony.
I have no personal knowledge beyond what I heard Rachel say because I did not attempt to read the transcripts.
Good for Lawrence O'Donnell, though!
Cha
(295,899 posts)Bob McCulloch should be fired if that's even possible.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Nothing
Law amended or not, it's an illegal law. Just like the ADA they just won't tell the full truth
bobGandolf
(871 posts)will we see a new grand jury? Highly doubtful
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)now proclaims that was wrong(introducing misleading information into GJ proceedings)and the Missouri law needs to be changed and updated to reflect the SCOTUS ruling". The Mo. law was invalid since 1986! What's so hard about understanding this fact? The information was introduced to the ferguson GJ to confused and obfuscate. No other reason is apparent. Such transparent bullshit! When it comes to justice for people of color, this is the M.O., perfected over generations of white racist scheming, that is the american brand/level of justice for people of color. geez.. It is infuriating that they feel that people of color and any other decent person is stupid enough to believe them. I said decent, not the wilsonthepig lovers present here and many other places I have been watching/reading. Fascism is alive and well in amerika and racism is it's blood brother.
sakabatou
(42,082 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)which is so pitifully little.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)The way the job description of the MO AG is written makes it very hard for them to prosecute. They mostly handle consumer cases (examples are tobacco, the payday loans currently under investigation and some of the psychic hotlines that were successfully prosecuted in the past) and cases that are in opposition to the MO Constitution. An example of this is the St Louis/KC marriage equality cases. Though the AG is in favor his hands are tied.)
More than likely they are hoping for the feds to step in and prosecute. If that happens there will be no lines crossed with the state AG's official job description. The only other thing is to have the reps attempt to change MO law but since it's a Republican super majority and the governor (Nixon) and AG (Koster) are both Dems it'll never happen.