General Discussion

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)

45. +100 nt

Reply to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:42 PM

Dec 2014

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