This term, "public trial" is echoed from (unofficial) Racial Czar Al "Not So" Sharpton. Brown's parents wanted a "public trial" even skipping the Constitutionally-required grand jury for such a case. A required Constitutional Amendment is so much more difficult than simply rallying the emotions of like-colored sympathizers, isn't it, Al?
National Bar Association president, Pamela Meanes--who claims to live mere minutes from Ferguson seems to be the instigator of this press release and set of claims.
Obama, Jarrett, Holder and Sharpton have so much to answer for in this case! Impeach and remove!
HF
The prosecutor knew that he didn’t have a case, unlike 99% of the Lefties out there, he read the evidence. In a normal case, he would have simply declined to prosecute and not bothered to go to the Grand Jury. Many, many cases are disposed with exactly in this fashion - prosecutors do not waste time, energy, and resources on cases that are going nowhere.
But, he couldn’t do that here, the lynch mob was in full cry. So by doing a document dump to the Grand Jury and letting them sort through it to get to an inevitable conclusion, he bought time, shifted the blame, and put a stamp of citizen review on it all. This is how Grand juries used to operate, but they have not done so for a long time.
The disappointed lynch mob will just have to content themselves with burning down minority owned businesses.
If God descended from the Heavens and proclaimed Wilson innocent, these a-holes would smear and indict God.
That describes a corrupted process.
The writer is complaining that the process wasn't sufficiently corrupted.
PLEASE PUT THE TRUTH IN THE HEADLINE.
Boo frickin’ hoo.
The REALITY of the UNIQUENESS of this case is that a DEMOCRAT prosecutor didn’t abuse the target of the probe....
Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, and Scooter Libby were victims of imbecilic prosecutors. Their crime? Being conservatives.
Darren Wilson, a cop, was targeted....but the Grand Jury wasn’t denied the bulk of the evidence.
The lawyers whining here are apparently upset the typical ABUSE of the GJ SYSTEM want employed.
"McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved. This is the opposite of the customary ham-sandwich approach, in which the jurors are explicitly steered to the prosecutor’s preferred conclusion."
Another Marxist organization trying to lynch an innocent man.
Pray America is waking
It wasn’t a trial, was it?
National Bar Association is made up of Negro lawyers.
I’m surprised. These so called “civil rights” types are always complaining about prosecutionary misconduct involving over zealous prosecutors and a system that lacks transparency. I believe this prosecutor did exactly what should be done in every case where there aren’t factors that would preclude it.
I found it refreshing that I could simply read through witness testimony and evidence and reach a level of confidence that the right decision was made. There is a reason why the race baiters now don’t want transparency and don’t want grand juries and that is because it prevented them from having an even bigger money making circus. Its pretty hard to keep up a totally false narrative of a poor young innocent black kid getting shot when you have it in black and white that he was without a doubt grappling for the officers gun.
That there is not one piece of hard evidence contradicting Officer Wilson’s account made this an open and shut case. I do wish that the prosecutor would go after those who told boldfaced lies to the grand jury in an attempt to wrongly indict this officer because they are representative of the disease in the ghetto black community that is going to keep encouraging poor young black men to their deaths and prison through their irrational hatred of the police and affinity for committing crime.
Now, the American[?] Bar Association has released an official statement, questioning whether had ever intended to push for an indictment at all, in spite of the fact that it was his job to do so.
No, you evil morons, a prosecutor's job is press for an indictment only if the evidence warrants. And to do just the opposite if the evidence does not.
“It looks like he wanted to create the appearance that there had been a public trial when in fact there hadn’t been,” said Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, in an interview with The New York Times.
Everyone knows the difference, but Noah Feldman views the American public the way Jonathan Gruber does.
Feldman said that it all seemed like “the prosecutor didn’t want an indictment—and didn’t want to be blamed for not getting one.”
Well, duh!
Too bad the National Trial Lawyers don’t understand as much as I taught about Grand Juries to my High School government classes...
Perhaps a Grand Jury once impaneled...will investigate the corruption of the National Trial Lawyers group... ( ; )as is within their powers... ( ; )
Not a whole lotta brainpower goin’ on in that group, eh?
Oh well, the Holderidiot and Obamadotk have law degrees, so we’re not talkin’ STEM standards in the profession.
And always remember that the majority of the nation’s least respected profession are lawyers.
they can’t argue on the evidence, so try to smear the prosecutor they must
Consistent with their usual stand of supporting murderers of police officers.
...and that is justice? I think not.
But not a word about the corruption of the lawyer in the White House.....