Ferguson, MO

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by KDCat

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

Agreed 100%.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

Originally Posted by KDCat

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by AGDee

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

I understand, too. When the prosecutor takes it on himself to act as defense, presents all the potentially exculpatory evidence, allows the accused to testify for himself, fails to look for probable cause as he would in any other case, and then essentially tells the GJ to do what they think is right without giving a recommendation as he would in any other case, the outcome isn't surprising.

You've actually highlighted the problem with the way this was handled. No one gets this kind of defense from a prosecutor.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by pbear19

You've actually highlighted the problem with the way this was handled. No one gets this kind of defense from a prosecutor.

+1, pbear19.

That's exactly what stuck with me from the array of reporting and other coverage I've read/heard. I'm also left wondering how many of last night's rioters/looters were actually registered voters, you know, actually participating (however minimally) in the process of their own political empowerment.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

I think people would have been less pissed if a trial resulted in no conviction. There weren't riots after Zimmerman was acquitted or after the Jordan Davis hung jury. People were angry but at least they were being heard. This smacks of cover-up.

There was enough evidence from witnesses to get past a preliminary hearing if McCullough just filed charges (ie. "charging by information"). The evidence would have been heard in open court, rather than behind closed doors. The process is as important as the result.

Grand juries stink. Too secretive.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

That was almost the 100% agreement on most of the Progressive Radio talk shows today. And also that McCulloch is from a family of cops, and his Dad was killed in the line of duty.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Protests are gearing up again tonight, all over the country and different parts of Europe and other countries.

To paraphrase the title of a 2003 documentary:

The Revolution Will be Televised, and Tweeted and Live-streamed.