General Discussion

mercuryblues

(16,171 posts)

32. One of the

Reply to Man from Pickens (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 04:32 PM

Dec 2014

points brought up by an article I read last week.

The jury heard testimony and viewed evidence, interpreting it based on the (unconstitutional) law they were given at the beginning. When it came time to decide, they gave them the new law and would not discuss the changes and why it was changed.

This was not a mistake. This was deliberate. Someone had to make an concerted effort to find the (unconstitutional) law dating back over 30 years ago. They knew the affect it would have on the jurors during testimony. They thought they could get away with it by providing the updated version before deliberation.

I don't know what system they use to find jury instructions, but I am damned sure it has been updated more than a few times in the last 3 decades.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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