Posted on 08/22/2014 7:48:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
CNN host Jake Tapper had some discouraging news for those who would prefer to see not only Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson go to trial but be convicted for his role in the slaying of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Getting a conviction, let alone creating a case which would see the inside of a courtroom, will be difficult for prosecutors.
In an interview with Georgetown University Law Professor Paul Brown, Tapper asked what evidentiary thresholds prosecutors must clear in order to create a strong case against Wilson. Tapper observed that the grand jury hearing the details of the case is made up of three African-Americans and nine whites, suggesting that the demographic most incensed by the teen’s killing are underrepresented.
He added that Democratic Missouri State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal has warned that, if the case does not go to trial and/or Wilson is found not guilty, Missouri should be prepared for all of Ferguson “to have looting.” Unfortunately for Missouri, murder trails do not hinge on the threats of local politicians.
“The hardest thing would be that the defendant is a police officer,” Brown said of the obstacles in the way of prosecutors. “Often jurors are extremely sympathetic to police officers.”
Moreover, the prosecutors have to prove that Wilson did not have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, Brown said. Worse for those who are suspicious of Wilson, the testimony of those eyewitnesses who claim that the slain teen was surrendering when he was shot is not going to enjoy much credibility with the jury.
“Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable,” Brown said.
Finally, while it is possible the grand jury will decide to indict, a conviction is going to be harder to secure. The racial makeup of the grand jury, Brown said, will come into play and the preponderance of whites on the jury, who have likely had better experiences with the police than their black counterparts, may mean that Wilson gets the benefit of the doubt.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
So he’s saying the grand jury won’t indict because of their racial makeup, not because of the facts.
It was an uphill battle getting Jesus on the cross but the media managed it.
And the media’s learned a lot in the last two thousand years.
Don’t sell yourself short Jake...
Why knot?
Maybe his network can help by putting out the addresses of the jurors and photos of their houses.
Film of the “gentle giant” throwing around that liquor store clerk like a rag doll...a young woman who’s appeared on TV saying there was a physical confrontation between the cop and the punk...the photos of the cop’s facial injuries don’t bode well for a successful prosecution.
Well Jake, we know you’ll give it your all.
that’s what I got out of it too.
“Unfortunately for Missouri, murder trails do not hinge on the threats of local politicians.”
Some don’t.
The Leftist Mafia is working to lynch the Police Officer.
How does a grand Jury indict someone?
I presume a vote is taken, but does it have to be unanimous? How many votes does it take?
Can you imagine the hell the black jurors will have to go through if everyone on the jury votes not to indict?
In time, everyone will know who the blacks were, so at least one, or maybe two, have to vote to indict to provide cover.
Why on earth do people have to blame everything on race.
If the man was trying to surrender he wouldn’t have beat cop, and its extremely unlikely he would have started the fight in the first place.
Indeed there is no rational reason to believe the beat up cop would kill anyone on the account of race. Black in this country seem to be taught to think of everything in terms of race and blame every problem and judgement on their race.
Almost nobody else thinks that way anymore.
Missouri 9 out of 12
It doesn’t help that one of the eye witnesses was the accomplice in the strong arm robbery. The defense attorney will have a great time presenting that in court.
I was under the distinct impression that Jake Tapper was one of the more reasonable journalists out there.
Not "reasonable", mind you, but definitively "more reasonable".
Does the Grand Jury see any of the exculpatory evidence? Or is a Grand Jury completely one-sided in favor of the prosecutor? Leave the facts up to the trial itself, if they can get the indictment?
[ It was an uphill battle getting Jesus on the cross but the media managed it.
And the media’s learned a lot in the last two thousand years.
Don’t sell yourself short Jake... ]
Excellent Point...
Hugh Hewitt calls this guy a fair journalist. I am not sure I agree. He is only in it for himself. Truth is not the measure of a “journalist” any more.
Missouri 9 out of 12
Sorry, I asked my resident attorney about the obligation(s) of a Grand Jury prosecutor AFTER my last post. Apparently they are obliged to reveal exculpatory evidence. If it’s later learned that they didn’t present that evidence to the GJ, they can have any conviction overturned.
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.