Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer (Ridiculous. Yuck!)

The Huffington Post's The Blog ^ | November 29, 2014 | Marjorie Cohn

[2ndDivisionVet]

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

On Aug. 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown. Since that fateful day, people across the country have protested against racial profiling, excessive police force, and the failure of the criminal justice system to provide accountability.

The nail in the coffin of “equal justice under law” came on Nov. 24, when the St. Louis County grand jury refused to indict Wilson for any criminal charges in the shooting death of Brown. In a virtually unprecedented move, St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in effect deputized the grand jurors to sit as triers of fact as in a jury trial.

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch’s team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

Justice Antonin Scalia explained the function of the grand jury in United States v. Williams(continued)

[2ndDivisionVet]

There is an old saying that prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich – and statistics bear that out. But the police slaying of a young African-American man in Missouri received startlingly different treatment with the grand jury almost invited to exonerate the officer, says Marjorie Cohn.

Dorian Johnson? Seriously? Hahahahaha! And I thought that strong-arm robbery was a felony?

Marjorie Cohn, a criminal defense attorney, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. She is co-author (with David Dow) of Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice.

[Holly_P]

“Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them”

What do federal grand juries have to do with anything? The grand jury in St. Louis was a state grand jury.

[KarlInOhio]

Yet McCulloch’s team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

Just imagine if some of those "eye witnesses" did have to stand up to an aggressive defense attorney.

[shove_it]

Officer Wilson better get legal advice on protecting his assets because his Police Chief has thrown him to the wolves. Also get out of Dodge and into a good paying job in the energy business.

[tcrlaf]

In the liberal worldview, there is no need for Grand Juries.
Only Obama (Peace be upon him!) decides guilt or innocence.

[willywill]

“gunned down”

oh, that’s what we call it when law enforcement does the job we pay them to do.

[catnipman]

“You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth. “

And there’s no other possibility than “the fix is in” for this case, say for example, that the officer knew he was innocent and knew that the forensic evidence would back his innocence and that the best way to prove his innocence was to testify on his own behalf?

Pretty much anyone who’s paid any attention at all to criminal trials realizes that pretty much only guilty people refuse to testify on their own behalf.

[Greysard]

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime.

The purpose of GJ is "to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought." Obviously then the GJ found no probable cause to believe that the LEO committed a crime. The only witness who came up with the theory of an unprovoked attack by Mr. Wilson had discredited himself several times, as his story did not align with physical evidence on scene. Everything else matched up.

[lentulusgracchus]

Just imagine if some of those "eye witnesses" did have to stand up to an aggressive defense attorney.

If they had, they'd have needed defense attorneys of their own. Their own statements were, in some cases, outright and disprovable lies which, repeated on the stand, would have constituted flaming perjury.

[boop]

This article misses the point. This case shouldn't have even made it to a GJ!

Any DA worth his salt would have called it "a piece of $hit", and would have never even convened one.

The fact that he wasted time and money at all is testament to the fear-driven politicians who cower to the race baiters in the first place.

And everyone involved in the investigation is a democrat.

Wouldn't surprise me if Wilson is one, too.

Liberals don't like the outcome?

Go cry to Nixon.

He had Wilson practically hanging from a noose with his moronic anti-due process statements.

[lentulusgracchus]

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/ is Cohn's website, featuring a huge "peace" sign ("I [heart] KGB" would be the meta translation) and links to her various lefty articles about e.g. indicting President Arbusto and dragging him bodily before an ICC show trial where he would be rent limb from limb by Communists (note the reference to the old-line Stalinist National Lawyers Guild, of which Cohn is a past president). They don't come any Lefter than this shrew.

[jonrick46]

The FBI did forensic investigation of the blood spatter on Michael Brown. The blood spatter showed an elliptical pattern consistent with someone running. That is consistent with the eyewitness reports of Brown charging Darren Wilson while being shot.

[cpdiii]

When Mr. Brown attacked Officer Wilson without any provocation it was no longer a question of an officer of the law and a citizen. At this point you had two men in a struggle for life. Brown tried to take officer's Wilson weapon and at this point it became life and death for both. Officer Wilson fired his weapon twice in the police vehicle as Brown attacked him, hitting Brown once. The DNA and blood prove this.

Brown then fled and then turned on Wilson in an attack. Brown had attempted to disarm Wilson a few seconds earlier and Wilson logically assumed that Brown would try and kill him a second time. I think what really happened is Brown because of his height weight and size had never been challenged in an altercation in the past. When the adrenaline started flowing due to the altercation he went into "normal mode" and attacked his opponent which was officer Wilson. Wilson in fear of his life killed him. It was a legal and just shoot. Brown had already showed his intent to kill officer Wilson.

[nathanbedford]

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

Let's see if we can follow the reasoning of this law school professor. When someone fails to take the Fifth Amendment that is evidence of guilt; when someone voluntarily testifies, that is evidence of guilt; when someone voluntarily testifies for a long time that is evidence of guilt; cumulatively, all of the above is evidence of a conspiracy, i.e. "the fix is in."

The law professor doesn't even know the purpose of the grand jury, it is not to operate as an automaton, an indicting agent, rather it is part of the screening process to protect the criminally accused. If the grand jury does not find probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the accused actually committed it, it should render no true bill and the defendant is thus protected from enduring a trial.

Further, since that is the purpose of the grand jury, the defendant does not enjoy prerogatives that he enjoys in a plenary trial such as the right to call and confront witnesses and the right to have his guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But just because the defendant does not have rights, does not mean that the prosecutor lacks discretion to control the proceedings to adduce all facts he regards to be relevant, even exculpatory evidence. Overall, prosecutor has an affirmative obligation to produce in the course of criminal proceedings all evidence which might prove exculpatory to the defendant. To do so in the grand jury proceeding is entirely within the spirit of that law and certainly not evidence of prosecutorial bias in favor of the defendant.

To misquote justice Scalia by taking him out of context demonstrates the bias of the author. More interesting than her obvious radical left-wing bias is the delusionary state of so much of black America which accepts this ill logic and the rationalizations of the White Left which psychologically compels them for their own psychological needs to accept this ill logic.

In my about page I made the point years ago that the left is essentially philosophically bankrupt but consider that it is absolutely necessary for a philosophy which says "we are smarter than you" to resort to the argument ending false charge that "you of the conservative philosophy are racists and we are not." The charge both ends the discussion and ends the need for leftists to think.

Black America seizes on the ill logic of the arguments presented in this article because that is human nature, to avoid admitting fault in oneself by placing the blame on others. One might extrapolate that thinking process we see in this case to the whole of the African-American dystopia.

One need not pick apart the absurdity of the claims in this article, they are too numerous and too gross, it is important, however, to understand why they are made and their appeal. The appeal is so great that it even permits someone of so obviously possessed of egregious ill logic to become a law professor. This writing should not even pass a bluebook law school exam in criminal law yet political correctness has elevated her beyond her competence.

[48th SPS]

On Aug. 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown

“Gun down” is what young blacks do to young blacks on a daily basis. What Officer Wislin did was defended himself.

[Ray76]

Her wikipedia page shows her with the radical left

National Lawyers Guild, Common Dreams, Pacifica

[Ray76]

She signed a petition opposing “the demonization of Professor William Ayers.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2112816/posts?page=24#24

[trebb]

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

How would taking the Fifth make it seem less sinister?

[Covenantor]

My understanding is that Grand Jury members can ask questions during direct testimony of the suspect who is not allowed advice of counsel in the GJ Room.

Are things different in Missouri?

[trebb]

Are things different in Missouri?

Of course they are - the whole deal is based on racism....

When Jesse, Al and company pass on, the world will be a bit cleaner and saner.