Posted on 11/26/2014 7:45:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I thought that St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch stated during the reading of his statement and then again in the question and answer segment that by law the breakdown of the vote was not to be released. Did anyone else get that?
I could've sworn I heard Megyn Kelly say the decision was unanimous but I haven't been able to find the video.
The cop should’ve been indicted, IF HE HADN’T shot the perp attacking him with intent to kill.
Sooth,
You are exactly right. The reason it is rare not to indict is because prosecutors don’t bring cases this weak except for extraordinary reasons, i.e., politics.
Oldplayer
The Austin, Texas District Attorney is an example of a prose htor using indictments to achieve what Democrats cant do politically.
Remember what Tom DeLay went through before he was exonerated?
Now its Rick Perry who is the target.
yes i heard same..cant be released also heard them say it had to be 9 out 12 agreeing to bring charges
Mike
That information is not recorded for public consumption.
The reason that this jury decided the way it did is because they were given ALL the evidence available. Nothing was cherry picked and nothing was withheld. Hence, they came to the conclusion based on THE EVIDENCE
It was stated from the start that this GJ would be getting all available evidence as it was collected so the No Bill is actually credible.
Of course it wasn’t the “correct” decision so now they’re trying to trash its work and that of the Prosecutor. So typical of the lefties.
Michael Brown’s mother may face felony armed robbery charges: report
Lesley McSpadden allegedly led a group of 20 to 30 people to a tent in a parking lot in Ferguson, Mo. on Oct. 18 to beat and rob vendors selling ‘Justice for Michael Brown’ merchandise.
BY Marc Weinreich
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:15 AM
Updated: Friday, November 7, 2014, 3:52 PM
The mother of Michael Brown could be charged with felony armed robbery for allegedly attacking people in a Ferguson, Mo., parking lot because they were selling T-shirts honoring the late teenager.
The Ferguson Police Department is currently investigating claims that Lesley McSpadden brought a group of people — including her own mother — to beat vendors and rob them of their “Justice for Mike Brown” merchandise Oct. 18, The Smoking Gun has learned.
Then why didn’t they indict Ted Kennedy he killed a girl no doubt about it.
My mother recently served on a grand jury which did not send back indictments in all the cases brought. They believed there was insufficent evidence, and in our state the prosecution only has to convince 12 out of 23 grand jurors that there is sufficient evidence for trial.
I have no idea.
My concern is that it seems most people don’t understand what a Grand Jury is or how it operates.
Tonight, Judge Alex (the former Circuit Court Judge), was on Fox, and was explaining why they went to a grand jury. He said that it was because the Prosecutor had witnesses who were lying (which he didn’t know), and he thought getting a conviction would be a slam dunk. However, when he got further into the investigation, he discovered there were several black young men who were in agreement with what Officer Wilson had said about the incident.
So, because of that, the Prosecutor decided to take it to a grand jury. When the other witnesses came forward and agreed with Wilson, the Prosecutor decided to present everything to the grand jury.
Yes, it is unusual .. but I believe it was the right choice.
Why is outrage understandable?
Unanimous, IIRC.
If you think the prosecutor is refusing to prosecute actual wrongdoing, you might be understandably outraged.
If the prosecutor sends it to a GJ for review, your outrage may be mitigated knowing that some regular folk reviewed the case in more detail than you and realized there isn’t a viable case.
No, the defendant has to be very sure of his facts to go before a grand jury. He’s sworn in before the grand jury and cannot have a defense attorney present. (no defense attorneys in the grand jury room, just the prosecutor). And he has to know that once he is sworn in, his answers to questions become evidence.
I think, if possible, every citizen who is eligible should serve on a grand jury, if possible. The process is extremely educational, and suddenly a lot of the phrases you hear in the news makes sense, and a lot of the comments by the talking heads, make no sense. Educational, very educational.
As to the breakdown of who voted what, it’s illegal to ask, and illegal for them to say. Someone may leak it later, but as of now, there were not 9 people in that room that thought the evidence was worth indicting a ham sandwich. :-)
Mark Levin shed some light on the process the other day. A GJ is different than a trial. The GJ’s purpose is to seek probable cause to prosecute, whereas a trial seeks to convict beyond reasonable doubt. That being said, I would agree with the others that this was a Pontius Pilate moment by the Ferguson authorities to allow themselves to say they had done all there was to do without bringing the case to trial.
That information was not provided by the judge overseeing the grand jury. The prosecutor made this clear in his press conference. Heck, it may not have been known by the judge, and only the 12 jury members know. Perhaps not even them, if the foreman did a secret ballot.
If they don't agree that the president indeed has committed impeachable offenses then they have not reviewed the evidence or they are brain dead, or a lawyer.
I don’t think we will ever know the vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.