fate

I think if we were to see all of the evidence, I don't think we'd find much inclination toward "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

You are conflating the purpose behind Grand Juries, or Preliminary hearings...
Since you are an avowed expert on the legal system i can only conclude you are doing this purposefully. Why?

fate

if you don't think this happens already, you're not well-informed.

And how did that work in Ferguson? Or New York. Or Cleveland?
Even procedures in place weren't followed.... or do you have evidence otehr wise that you have kept to yourself?

Fate

You make it sound like an officer goes out and drinks with the IA guys who then bury the evidence of bad shootings, etc. You don't know anything.

So who do i believe, your vast experience or organizations like Human Rights Watch...

There is a natural conflict of interest when district attorneys - who typically work closely with the police to bring cases against suspected criminals - are faced with prosecuting those same officers. District attorneys count on officers' testimony to support their cases during trials of alleged criminals. There is a particular reticence in bringing charges against officers who have been "productive" and who have worked closely with the district attorney's office. In some jurisdictions, district attorneys are elected and are aware that the powerful police unions and their supporters may withdraw their support if a police officer is prosecuted.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/police/uspo31.htm

rickyp wrote:fate

I think if we were to see all of the evidence, I don't think we'd find much inclination toward "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

You are conflating the purpose behind Grand Juries, or Preliminary hearings...

No, I'm not. I said "we." I mean "we," not a Grand Jury. In other words, if WE looked at the evidence, I don't think we would conclude that a guilty verdict was likely. I'm not saying that is the standard for a Grand Jury. There's is "probable cause," very similar to making an arrest. I don't think you would have arrested the officers either.

Since you are an avowed expert on the legal system i can only conclude you are doing this purposefully. Why?

No, not on the system. I do know something about being a police officer though.

fate

if you don't think this happens already, you're not well-informed.

And how did that work in Ferguson? Or New York. Or Cleveland?

How can anyone say with certainty? However, in Ferguson, I don't care how you slice it, you were not going to convict that officer without hand-picking a jury that was willing to ignore the law.

Even procedures in place weren't followed.... or do you have evidence otehr wise that you have kept to yourself?

Yes, I do have something I've not revealed. Here it is, and do try to grasp it: police officers are innocent until proven guilty. You can't seem to grasp that. You have presumed guilt, not demonstrated it. You want me to prove that the system worked when you can't show that it hasn't. Hint: rioting mobs don't establish the system worked or didn't.

Fate

You make it sound like an officer goes out and drinks with the IA guys who then bury the evidence of bad shootings, etc. You don't know anything.

So who do i believe, your vast experience or organizations like Human Rights Watch...

[/quote]



HRW? Why not invoke the UN?

Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with HRW's opinion. They are wrong as often as they are right. They are certainly not experts in DA/PD relations. Trust me, I never thought the DA was my friend.

What I find most interesting is the weird belief that using a preliminary hearing would be better. Because guess what, it wouldn't. You will still have a DA that decides what evidence to provide. And The thought that a Judge would be less police friendly than a random group of citizen is rather bizarre.

It's not that the grand jury would be more partial to the police than a judge. A state judge who makes decisions that the DA or police do not like may find it hard to get reelected. That is a strength of our jury system that jurors are not subject to that kind of pressure so they can make impartial decisions. (And arbitrators are subject to similar type pressures, as well). Federal judges are not subject to that kind of pressure because they get a lifetime appointment

The problem here is simply that the DA could not do a preliminary hearing where they submitted evidence in favor and against their case. It's just not done. I have never seen or heard of a prosecutor doing a preliminary hearing that way. The judge would look at them like they were crazy. At a preliminary hearing they would have to submit only evidence in favor of the case. And the police officer's attorney would get a chance to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. But you would not have this bizarre situation where the prosecutor, in our adversarial system, was putting on evidence that hurts his case. And I suspect a judge would have found probable cause in both cases if the prosecution had just submitted evidence favorable to their case. And certainly if the prosecutor had only submitted evidence favorable to the case at the grand jury they most likely would have got an indictment in each case.

Archduke Russell John wrote:What I find most interesting is the weird belief that using a preliminary hearing would be better. Because guess what, it wouldn't. You will still have a DA that decides what evidence to provide. And The thought that a Judge would be less police friendly than a random group of citizen is rather bizarre.

I'm not sure I expressed this belief, but then again I'm not up on all the subtleties of the US legal system.

But as I understand how it could go, getting charges can help to build the case and gather witnesses. If the case weakens as a result, charges can always be dropped before a hearing.

And preliminary hearings should really be just that, and not a long trial before the trial.

archduke

What I find most interesting is the weird belief that using a preliminary hearing would be better.

It would be public. which would be better than secret.

Where they have a choice, prosecutors often prefer grand juries because grand jury proceedings are secret. When prose­cutors file an information, they are usually required to convince a judge in a public preliminary hearing that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. This high burden is not present at a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecutor has to prove that there's only "probable cause" to believe that a crime occurred and the target of the proceeding committed it.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... inary.html

Grand juries almost always deliver the verdict the DA wants, because of the control he/she has over the proceedings. If this is so, the conclusion one can draw from Fergusonis is that the DA didn't want a charge.
Conducting the proceedings in secret, and selectively releasing information all appears to be part of managing the process.
Because the Preliminary Hearing is public, the DA is restrained in how he approaches the management of the process by the realization that a record of his proceedings will be available for public scrutiny.

rickyp wrote:Grand juries almost always deliver the verdict the DA wants, because of the control he/she has over the proceedings. If this is so, the conclusion one can draw from Fergusonis is that the DA didn't want a charge.

I find this logic dubious. If true, we might just as well let the DA independently indict. As you put it, the Grand Jury is a fig leaf. Furthermore, you present it as knowable, as if a jury, grand or not, acts in a predictable fashion.

Finally, you constantly ignore the obvious: that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude Officer Wilson likely committed a crime. Now, given the evidence available, someone ought to have been able to make a case for that, but they haven't. Pointing out unreliable witnesses is not the same as presenting probable cause to believe a crime was committed. There is no reason to doubt the Grand Jury in Ferguson was correct.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Grand juries almost always deliver the verdict the DA wants, because of the control he/she has over the proceedings. If this is so, the conclusion one can draw from Fergusonis is that the DA didn't want a charge.

I find this logic dubious. If true, we might just as well let the DA independently indict.

And would this be so bad? That is, if you had professional prosecutors instead of elected ones, and if they were held to account by elected bodies (so federal ones by Congress, State ones by the State legislatures) like a normal executive function.

Like our Crown Prosecution Service. Which is not perfect, but it's not as easily corrupted by electoral politics and the need to get support and money for individuals to fight elections (and that's where the police unions can come in), and so is less likely to be seen as corrupted.

Also, it's crazy to have any police officer who is accused of a crime while performing their duties being investigated by the police - especially their own department. So an independent police complaints body would also be a good idea. Again, not because the police will always protect their own, but to allay suspicions in any given case that that is what they did.

fate

I find this logic dubious

why?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

fate

Finally, you constantly ignore the obvious: that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude Officer Wilson likely committed a crime. Now, given the evidence available, someone ought to have been able to make a case for that, but they haven't.

You ignore the obvious. And you've got to be bent in a pretzel to avoid this...
The DA was in total control of the proceeding and presented the evidence in order to get a declination.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferg ... en-wilson/

rickyp wrote:fate

I find this logic dubious

why?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Oh, good night!

Do you even think before posting? Honestly? Are you a 'bot?

Look at your source: "162,000 federal cases"

Was Ferguson a "FEDERAL" grand jury??????

(Hint: NOOOOOOOOOOO!)

So, if you want to make a case, you'd have to look at non-Federal statistics or explain why the two are identical in nature and function.

fate

Finally, you constantly ignore the obvious: that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude Officer Wilson likely committed a crime. Now, given the evidence available, someone ought to have been able to make a case for that, but they haven't.

You ignore the obvious. And you've got to be bent in a pretzel to avoid this...
The DA was in total control of the proceeding and presented the evidence in order to get a declination.

No, I've not ignored the obvious. I have said the DA was in a no-win situation. I think no matter what he did, the anarchists, communists, Presidential buddies (Al Sharpton), and criminals were going to riot.

I think the DA gave all the evidence to the Grand Jury. Why? So, they could make the decision for him. I don't believe he thought a conviction was likely. If you know anything about DA's, you'll know this: they don't take loser cases if they can avoid it.

Please. Go make the case that it was reasonable to conclude Officer Wilson committed a crime. Go ahead. I'll wager you cannot.

That's why the Grand Jury did not.

Can anyone explain why a police officer should be tried differently in the court of law? Is that unequal treatment like I think it is?

A little legal advice...

bbauska wrote:Can anyone explain why a police officer should be tried differently in the court of law? Is that unequal treatment like I think it is?

A little legal advice...

I have not said that they should. My worry is that they have been in Grand Juries.

The next Michael Brown because cops just kill people For No Reason Whatsoever.

Read the article. It's not me saying these things--these people are relatives of police shooting "victims"--well, that's what they would like you to believe. Cops are just running around shooting innocent black kids who are as pure as the driven snow. We have to stop the slaughter!

Or, we can actually look into the character of the "kids," look at the circumstances of the shooting, and try to sort out what is what. Michael Brown was a thug. He was a bully. However, when he is shot and killed by Officer Wilson, he becomes a "child" who "was a good boy." No and no. Was it out of character for him to attack someone? Not even close.

Does that mean Wilson is off the hook? No, but it lends credibility to his story, as does the physical evidence.

I'm still waiting for a CASE to be made that Wilson should be on trial--one that explains how the physical evidence would lead one to conclude Wilson "probably" committed a crime.

fate

I'm still waiting for a CASE to be made that Wilson should be on trial--one that explains how the physical evidence would lead one to conclude Wilson "probably" committed a crime

.

The case that Wilson should be on trial was never made by the DA.

McCulloch: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury. And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn't put those witnesses on, then we'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.

So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did...

There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath.Some lied to the FBI. Even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense — a federal offense.

I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture…

http://www.atlredline.com/did-robert-mc ... 1673375395

Is it a just procceeding Fate when the DA subjorns perjury?

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm still waiting for a CASE to be made that Wilson should be on trial--one that explains how the physical evidence would lead one to conclude Wilson "probably" committed a crime

.

The case that Wilson should be on trial was never made by the DA.

McCulloch: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury. And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn't put those witnesses on, then we'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.

So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did...

There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath.Some lied to the FBI. Even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense — a federal offense.

I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture…

http://www.atlredline.com/did-robert-mc ... 1673375395

Is it a just procceeding Fate when the DA subjorns perjury?

Is "subjorn" a Swedish legal term?

My challenge remains: if it's so easy to make a case that the officer should be on trial, then do it. Make the case using the EVIDENCE. It's available. Make the case.

Don't whine about what the DA woulda, coulda, or shoulda done. Make the case.

What I will suggest to you re the witnesses is this:

1. If McCullough had excluded the lying witnesses, he would have been accused of favoring the officer.

2. If he had excluded witnesses whose testimony didn't match the physical evidence, there would have been very few witnesses.

3. Eyewitness testimony is notorious for being inaccurate. Some people lie. Others believe they are telling the truth, but their perceptions are tainted by stress, emotion, and even the angle of viewing. Furthermore, the mind will fill in "blank spots."

Here's the main problem with all of the "McCollough could have indicted Wilson if he REALLY want to" garbage: the physical evidence. There is no coherent case to be made that Wilson "gunned down" poor little, defenseless Michael Brown that was not contradicted by the physical evidence.