General Discussion

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

23. True ...

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 04:54 PM

Dec 2014

Typically, adverse witnesses/evidence never makes it to the GJ ... only the evidence that supports the State's case.

But in this strange case, the prosecutor DID cross exam the witnesses that did not support Wilson's account.

As I wrote before:

I spent the better part of the weekend reading through the transcript ... it read like a defense attorney's dream ... to be able to defend the accused before the GJ ... AND control the order of how and what evidence gets to them!

McCullom couldn't have done a better job at getting the No Bill had he walked in and said, "I don't believe you should indict this up-standing member of our fine law enforcement community; but ... you know ... I've got to go through the motions.

Drinks on me at O'Malley's!" (a local cop bar, back in the day).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Shocking mistake in Darren Wilson grand jury [View all] Man from Pickens Dec 2014 OP

Yes, Lawrence has been on this for a week now. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #1

Cop Tampered With Evidence? billhicks76 Dec 2014 #25

I think his mindset was he wasn't worried for one second about getting in trouble. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #41

k&r... spanone Dec 2014 #2

and only lawrence is covering this fact & story hopemountain Dec 2014 #3

I read they informed the GJ afterwards that it was no longer constitutional aikoaiko Dec 2014 #4

not really ... GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #14

Lawrence O'Donnell discussed this narrow issue again last night aint_no_life_nowhere Dec 2014 #19

Not according to the transcripts. nt IdaBriggs Dec 2014 #36

Yup. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #5

I didn't hear about this: Cali_Democrat Dec 2014 #6

That's what McCulloch kept saying during his 1/2 hour "explanation" of the verdict to not indict. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #12

My recollection is a bit different than that badtoworse Dec 2014 #17

Well, there was at least ONE instruction we know about, as cited in OP 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #20

He was supposed to be looking for an indictment. Instead he was acting as a defense attorney. He als sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #29

+1 Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #40

Precisely. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #43

Only 2 said Brown did not have hands up DMay Dec 2014 #39

DA used witness 10 as the main one to back up the story, yes "story" Wilson told NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #42

+100 nt 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #45

Who would cross examine in a GJ proceeding? The jurors are allowed to ask questions. badtoworse Dec 2014 #7

It's almost unheard-of to even allow an accused perp to appear on their own behalf before a GJ 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #10

So the idea of cross examination doesn't apply to a GJ? badtoworse Dec 2014 #11

There is no cross examination before a grand jury DefenseLawyer Dec 2014 #13

True ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #23

No. Universally GJ's typically ONLY hear evidence FOR a conviction 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #16

If a prosecutor believes no crime has been committed or that he can't win in court,... badtoworse Dec 2014 #21

Exactly, which is why McCulloch should have recused himself 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #28

There is no defense present at a GJ. They are generally provided information only by the prosecutor sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #30

I'm glad you used the word 'almost'. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #33

Wilson didn't really need to have a "counsel" present during his GJ testimony 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #37

Hell ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #18

Hard to believe those are "prosecutor's" questions, isn't it? nt TrollBuster9090 Dec 2014 #24

My saying McCulloch 'instructed' jury to ignore evidence is my interpretation of his statement 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #27

A law professor's take badtoworse Dec 2014 #31

Do you have a link supporting number 2? JDPriestly Dec 2014 #38

What I have is my very opinionated interpretation of this portion of McCulloch's "explanation" 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #46

Rec! progressoid Dec 2014 #8

It was a lot of things, but it was certainly not a mistake. n/t DefenseLawyer Dec 2014 #9

Rec GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #15

Another Rec! calimary Dec 2014 #35

^^This!^^ BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #26

"Not a bug, but a feature." TrollBuster9090 Dec 2014 #22

One of the mercuryblues Dec 2014 #32

Mistake??? blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #34

Thanks for this thread. leanforward Dec 2014 #44

"Mistake" implies that it wasn't intentional. baldguy Dec 2014 #47