http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-jury-wrangled-confusing-instructions
.
I don’t see a problem. Could you please explain the basis for your outrage?
Sounds to me like the prosecutor’s instructions would have given advantage to the prosecution, if anyone. If the Grand Jury believed that Brown was fleeing, under the law, they could have still found the officer acted lawfully in shooting him, and decided not to indict. The prosecutor’s instructions ensured that they didn’t make that mistake. In other words, if they thought Brown was fleeing, the prosecutor’s instructions would have meant that the Grand Jury would have been more likely to indict, rather than less likely.
Turns out it didn’t matter because the evidence didn’t seem to support the theory that Brown was fleeing.
Edited to correct terminology. Edits in bold.
Agree with the others. It sounds as if the instructions would have made it easier to find against Wilson.
Sounds as if Saltman saw an article stating that the prosecutor did something out of the ordinary so Saltman assumed it was in Wilson’s favor.
In the words of the great Inigo Montoya - “I don think it means what you think it means”
Sounds to me like the prosecutor’s instructions would have given advantage to the defense, if anyone. If the Grand Jury believed that Brown was fleeing, under the law, they could have still found the officer acted lawfully in shooting him. The prosecutor’s instructions ensured that they didn’t make that mistake. In other words, if they thought Brown was fleeing, the prosecutor’s instructions would have meant that the Grand Jury would have been more likely to indict, rather than less likely.
Turns out it didn’t matter because the evidence didn’t seem to support the theory that Brown was fleeing.
That’s how I read it, too. At first I thought I wasn’t smart enough to see the problem here and didn’t trust my own opinion.
I am questioning whether anybody understands the job of a prosecutor on this board.
The prosecution gave the GJ a statute that hasn’t been valid since 1985 at the beginning of the proceedings. Without getting into too much detail. That statute allows a police officer to shoot and kill someone under far less threatening circumstances than what is legal today. That meant that the GJ reviewed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony under an assumption that an officer can legally use deadly force with far more discretion than they are legally afforded today or at any point since 1985. Then AFTER the evidence was reviewed and after Wilson testified (another unusual move by a prosecutor), the prosecutor said throw away that statute, we made a mistake. Further, instead of pointing out the differences in the law, they just dumped the new law on them as an afterthought with no further instruction.
This is prosecutor NOT a defense attorney. Does anyone think this prosecutor has ever presented evidence to support a potential defendant to GJ before?? As a refresher: Here is what Chief Justice Scalia says the purpose of a GJ is (in general):
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
By the way there is ample evidence that doesn’t support Wilson’s version of the events as well.
I stand corrected. I read most of the article but didn’t see the part about them providing the wrong info at the beginning. I understand your point.
By the way there is ample evidence that doesn’t support Wilson’s version of the events as well.
I haven’t read the released information. What is some of the evidence that you speak of?
It could have been a mistake, but seems a tad suspicious given how long the law has been incorrect. Still if it was a mistake, a prosecutor seeking an indictment (which is what they should be doing) would have made damn sure they gave detailed proper instruction.
Bottom line is this prosecutor was in a no win situation and should have recused himself from the very beginning. That he didn’t recuse himself or his office suggests to me (and several others) that he didn’t wanted to ensure an outcome that in fact was not an indictment.
He better hope for his sake the federal investigation yields the same result.
I am questioning whether anybody understands the job of a prosecutor on this board.
I am a former prosecutor. I do not think you understand what that article says.
I am going off the article, so, I will have to assume it is true. You have the facts wrong.
Per the article, the MO law is still in full force and effect. In 1985, the US Supreme Court held that a Tennessee law, that was identical (or nearly identical) to the MO law, was unconstitutional. MO never changed the law and the MO law was never challenged before the US Supreme Court. The MO Supreme Court changed the MO jury instructions in an attempt to comply with the SCOTUS decision regarding the Tennessee law. That does not change the law. The MO law is still in full force and effect.
The prosecutors correctly presented the MO law that is still in full force and effect. Obviously, at some point, they realized that, if the grand jury decided based on the MO law, it could be challenged and would eventually be overturned. So, they advised the grand jury to disregard the MO law b/c it could be challenged.
Not sure why you think this is a bad move by the prosecutor. I see absolutely nothing in that article that shows anything but proper conduct by the DA. If you have another source of information, I am happy to consider it.
JSA think about this more from a strategy perspective than a legal and remember this is a prosecutor presumably seeking an indictment.
Why would a prosecutor present a law that is unconstitutional and would only help a defendant in the first place? Then why would they be so incredibly vague about what makes the law unconstitutional?
JSA think about this more from a strategy perspective than a legal and remember this is a prosecutor presumably seeking an indictment.
Why would a prosecutor present a law that is unconstitutional and would only help a defendant in the first place? Then why would they be so incredibly vague about what makes the law unconstitutional?
The law is in full force and effect in MO. The MO law have never been challenged. Yes, there is a belief that it would be declared unconstitutional, if challenged, but, it hasn’t yet. It is the law in MO. I guarantee you what happened is that all the relevant laws were put in a package to present to the grand jury. During the proceedings, someone realized this law could cause an issue, so, the DA advised the grand jury to disregard.
In some states (NY for example), the defendant has the right to testify before the grand jury. Not sure about MO, but, there are other states with the same right, so, the defendant appears before the grand jury more often than you think.
I said in another thread about the grand jury that in some cases the DA presents the case to the grand jury for a decision on whether to prosecute. You seem to think the DA has already decided to prosecute and decided the case had merit. That is not always the case. Many times, the DA may question whether there is a basis for the case but political pressure demands it go to a grand jury. In this case, there is no chance in hell the case was not going to the grand jury even though the evidence supported the officer’s account of the incident.
I can not speak to this law and this article, however, DA’s need the police to keep their jobs and further their careers - DA’s need convictions, and they need a police force to bring them strong cases. DA’s do not want to spoil any relationships with police units, and may not be motivated to bring indictments against police. Don’t we need some kind of oversight in any cases with police?
I can not speak to this law and this article, however, DA’s need the police to keep their jobs and further their careers - DA’s need convictions, and they need a police force to bring them strong cases. DA’s do not want to spoil any relationships with police units, and may not be motivated to bring indictments against police. Don’t we need some kind of oversight in any cases with police?
Do you base this on your time in the prosecutor’s office or your time in law enforcement?
What a bunch of bullshit. There always has been and always will be a love-hate relationship b/t the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement.
You didn’t answer my 2nd question which is pretty important. If it was a mistake, they needed to give significantly better instruction as to what differences were. This is pretty egregious oversight by the way that only a clown of a DA would miss.
Why would the law cause an issue if it was in full force and effect and benefits a defendant?
**There always has been and always will be a love-hate relationship b/t the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement. **
Hard to say there isn’t a lot of love in this case given the DA’s very public support of the Ferguson police several months ago.
You didn’t answer my 2nd question which is pretty important. If it was a mistake, they needed to give significantly better instruction as to what differences were. This is pretty egregious oversight by the way that only a clown of a DA would miss.
Why would the law cause an issue if it was in full force and effect and benefits a defendant?
How do you figure? From your own article:
To understand the importance of the last minute clarification, one needs to understand the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tennessee vs. Garner.
A 15-year-old African-American youth in Memphis was shot and killed by a white officer as he fled a burglary. The boy was unarmed and had taken a purse.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a civil case that police violate the 4th Amendment by using deadly force to stop an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing felon. It is an unreasonable seizure.
But Missouri never changed its law to conform with Tennessee vs. Garner.
The Missouri law is Section 563.046 of Missouri’s revised statutes – titled “Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.” It provides an officer with a justification defense protecting him from criminal prosecution.
The law states that an officer is justified in the use of deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested (a) has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or (b) is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or (c) may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”
The problem is section (a). Contrary to Tennessee vs. Garner, that section authorizes the use of deadly force to stop an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing felon from escaping.
Even though legal experts agree that this subsection of the law has been at odds with the U.S. Constitution for almost three decades, the language is still in state law. In fact, the new criminal code that takes effect in 2017 retains the language.
The DA presented the law that is on the books. That was not a mistake. As the case went on, some one in the DA’s office realized there could be an issue, so, they told the grand jury to disregard.
I am still not seeing the issue here. What do you think the DA should have done in this case?
**There always has been and always will be a love-hate relationship b/t the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement. **
Hard to say there isn’t a lot of love in this case given the DA’s very public support of the Ferguson police several months ago.
Maybe my outrage detector is broken from eating too much food today. Could you more clearly delineate your conspiracy theory?
I don’t know how else to explain it. If the prosecutor felt the MO law was still “the law” there is no point in even bringing up the SC ruling. You said they may have felt it would cause an issue down the road. What issue could come up down the road if they didn’t make the clarification at all?