Posted on 06/18/2020 7:30:19 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
ATLANTA, Ga. (CBS46) -- The attorney for Atlanta Officer Devin Brosnan says his client has not agreed to be the state's witness in the Rayshard Brooks' death case.
Speaking with CNN, Attorney Don Samuel said, "Officer Brosnan has not agreed to testify. He has not agreed to plead guilty. He honestly told the DA’s office everything that happened during a lengthy interview yesterday. He will continue to tell the DA or the GBI, or any other investigator what happened. But he is absolutely not guilty of any crime and will not plead guilty and has not agreed to be a ‘state’s witness.’”
During a Wednesday press conference, Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard announced 11 charges had been filed against former APD officer Garrett Rolfe, and 3 had been filed against Bronsan in connection to the fatal June 13 shooting.
"The decision to initiate charges by the Fulton County DA’s office is irrational and obviously based on factors which should have nothing to do with the proper administration of justice. This was not a rush to judgment. This was a rush to misjudgment," said Samuel.
Brosnan's charges include aggravated assault, whereas Rolfe is charged with felony murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs46.com ...
This nation’s press is despicably slanted. Their chosen “narratives” are leading us toward CWII. And the education system of the past forty or fifty years has softened the minds of the populace to accept this BS. Imagine all this nonsense happening fifty years ago. It would have been impossible. But back then we had something to center our lives - which is sorely lacking today...SSZ
Rayshard allegedly gave him a concussion.
Does anyone tell the truth anymore? What a sick evil world we’re living in.
Maybe if they subpoena him it doesn't matter if he agrees or not, and then the media can claim he will testify "against" Rolfe, before they hear his testimony.
And maybe not.
The 5th Amendment grand jury requirement has not been incorporated against the states and does not apply. Most states permit the filing of an information.
However, that does not appear to be the case in Georgia. Trial is upon indictment or accusation. There are some special provisions for peace officers accused of crime in performance of duties.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-7/article-3/section-17-7-51/
O.C.G.A. 17-7-51 (2018)17-7-51. Special presentments treated as indictments; entry upon minutes; prosecutions upon special presentments
All special presentments by the grand jury charging defendants with violations of the penal laws shall be treated as indictments. It shall not be necessary for the clerk of the court to enter the special presentments in full upon the minutes, but only the statement of the case and finding of the grand jury as in cases of indictments. It shall not be necessary for the district attorney to frame bills of indictment on the special presentments, but he may arraign defendants upon the special presentments and put them on trial in like manner as if the presentments were bills of indictment.
- - - - - - - - - -
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-7/article-3/section-17-7-52/
§ 17-7-52. Procedure for indictment or special presentment of peace officer for crime in performance of duties; notification; rights of officerGA Code § 17-7-52 (2018)
(a) Before a bill of indictment or special presentment against a present or former peace officer charging the officer with a crime which is alleged to have occurred while he or she was in the performance of his or her duties is presented to a grand jury, the officer shall be given a copy of the proposed bill of indictment or special presentment and notified in writing of the contemplated action by the prosecuting attorney. Such notice and a copy of the proposed bill of indictment or special presentment shall be provided to such officer not less than 20 days prior to the date upon which a grand jury will begin hearing evidence, and such notice shall inform such officer:
(1) That the grand jury is investigating such officer's conduct to determine if there is probable cause to conclude that he or she has violated one or more laws of this state;
(2) Of the date upon which the grand jury will begin hearing testimony on the proposed bill of indictment or special presentment and the location of the hearing;
(3) That he or she may request, but cannot be compelled, to testify as a witness before the grand jury regarding his or her conduct; and
(4) That, if such officer requests to testify before the grand jury, he or she will be permitted to do so at the conclusion of the presentation of the state's case-in-chief and that he or she may be questioned by the prosecuting attorney or members of the grand jury as are any other witnesses.
(b) If the officer requests to appear as a witness, he or she shall notify the prosecuting attorney any time prior to the date the grand jury will begin hearing testimony in such investigation. The prosecuting attorney shall, after consulting with the grand jury, inform the officer in writing of the date and time when he or she shall be present in order to testify and of the procedure that the grand jury will follow pursuant to subsection (c) of this Code section. The prosecuting attorney shall further advise the grand jury that an officer has the right to appear and testify or not to appear and testify and that, if the officer chooses not to testify, the grand jury shall not consider that in any way in making its decision.
(c) Prior to the introduction of any evidence or the first witness being sworn, the prosecuting attorney shall advise the grand jury of the laws applicable to the conduct of such proceedings, all relevant sections of the Code relating to the crime or crimes alleged in the bill of indictment, and any Code section that excuses or justifies such conduct. In particular, the grand jury shall be advised of Code Sections 16-3-20, 16-3-21, 16-3-23.1, and 17-4-20.
(d) If the officer requests to testify before the grand jury and appears at the date and time specified, the case shall proceed as in any other criminal case heard by a grand jury, except that the officer shall be permitted to testify at the conclusion of the presentation of the state's case-in-chief and that he or she shall only be present in the grand jury room while he or she is testifying. Such officer may be questioned by the prosecuting attorney or members of the grand jury as are any other witnesses. After the officer has been sworn as a witness and prior to any testimony by the officer, the prosecuting attorney shall advise the officer substantially of the following:
(1) The officer's appearance before the grand jury is voluntary, and he or she cannot be compelled to appear as a witness;
(2) By agreeing to be sworn as a witness on the bill of indictment or special presentment that will be laid before the grand jury, he or she will be asked to testify and answer questions and may be asked to produce records, documents, or other physical evidence;
(3) The officer may refuse to answer any question or to produce records, documents, and other physical evidence if a truthful answer to the question or producing such records, documents, or other physical evidence would tend to incriminate the officer or would tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon the officer;
(4) Any testimony given by the officer may be used against him or her by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding; and
(5) If the officer is represented by an attorney, the attorney shall have the right to be present in the grand jury room while the officer is testifying, and the officer will be permitted reasonable opportunity to consult with his or her attorney outside the grand jury room.
(e) After being sworn as a witness but prior to being asked any questions by the prosecuting attorney or the grand jurors, the officer may make such sworn statement as he or she shall desire. The officer's attorney shall not propound questions to the officer nor object to questions propounded to the officer on evidentiary grounds.
(f) At the conclusion of the officer's testimony, if any, the prosecuting attorney may present rebuttal evidence and advise the grand jury on matters of law.
(g) At any time during the presentation of evidence or during deliberations, the grand jury may amend the bill of indictment or special presentment or instruct the prosecuting attorney to cause a new bill of indictment or special presentment to be created as in any other case. When a bill of indictment or special presentment is amended or newly created, the accused peace officer and his or her attorney shall be provided a copy of it.
(h) No individual other than the jurors, and any interpreter needed to assist a hearing impaired or speech impaired juror, shall be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting.
(i)(1) As used in this subsection, the term "nonserious traffic offense" means any offense in violation of Title 40 which is not prohibited by Article 15 of Chapter 6 of Title 40.
(2) The requirements of this Code section shall apply to all prosecutions, whether for felonies or misdemeanors, other than nonserious traffic offenses, and no such prosecution shall proceed either in state or superior court without a grand jury indictment or special presentment.
- - - - - - - - - -
presentment (pri-zent-mont). (15c) 1. The act of presenting or laying before a court or other tribunal a formal statement about a matter to be dealt with legally. 2. Criminal procedure. A formal written accusation returned by a grand jury on its own initiative, without a prosecutor’s previous indictment request. • Presentments are obsolete in the federal courts. See CHARGING INSTRUMENT.
“A grand jury has only two functions, either to indict or to return a ‘no bill.’ The Constitution speaks also of a ‘presentment,’ but this is a term with a distinct historical meaning now not well understood. Historically presentment was the process by which a grand jury initiated an independent investigation and asked that a charge be drawn to cover the facts should they constitute a crime. With United States attorneys now always available to advise grand juries, proceeding by presentment is an outmoded practice.” 1 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 110, at 459 (3d ed. 1999).
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-7/article-4/section-17-7-70/
§ 17-7-70. Trial upon accusations in felony cases; trial upon accusations of felony and misdemeanor cases in which guilty plea entered and indictment waivedhttps://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-7/article-4/17-7-70-1/(a) In all felony cases, other than cases involving capital felonies, in which defendants have been bound over to the superior court, are confined in jail or released on bond pending a commitment hearing, or are in jail having waived a commitment hearing, the district attorney shall have authority to prefer accusations, and such defendants shall be tried on such accusations, provided that defendants going to trial under such accusations shall, in writing, waive indictment by a grand jury.
(b) Judges of the superior court may open their courts at any time without the presence of either a grand jury or a trial jury to receive and act upon pleas of guilty in misdemeanor cases and in felony cases, except those punishable by death or life imprisonment, when the judge and the defendant consent thereto. The judge may try the issues in such cases without a jury upon an accusation filed by the district attorney where the defendant has waived indictment and consented thereto in writing and counsel is present in court representing the defendant either by virtue of his employment or by appointment by the court.
§ 17-7-70.1. Trial upon accusations in certain felony and misdemeanor cases; trial upon plea of guilty or nolo contendere
Yes the media will usually push an anti-police point of view. The DA has the officer’s statement and I don’t know what that contains. Whatever is there could be used in a trial. Is the DA bluffing? Don’t know but some of his statements seem to be misleading.
It looks like the DA faces the runoff election August 11th against one of the Deputy DA’s that ran against him because he is a bum. He is a terrible DA. He’s being investigated for diverting funds into his own pocket. It sound like that date is a factor in this case and until then he is going to double-down on the sort of behavior that caused people to run against him to begin with.
“states witness” to what??...its all on video....weird.
i watched the presser yesterday...it was torture listening to him try and string a sentence together coherently....brain dead.
Sounds like the other officer does not have to testify against himself but if the DA offers immunity for his testimony? In fact is it possible that the other officer is trying to get such an offer?
I do not live in the Atlanta area and have been watching this unfold from a distance, so I may be ignorant of some basic facts.
Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard is running for reelection this fall. A couple of weeks ago he charged an APD officer with assault for pointing a taser at someone, stating that under Georgia law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. Yesterday, he admitted that Rayshard, did in fact point and fire the stolen taser at the officer missing him. Yet in this case he is charging the officer with murder for return fire.
Did the officer, in fact know that it was a taser being fired at him? Do they make a noise? Would it have been reasonable under the circumstances for him to assume he was being fired upon with a pistol?
Fulton County, GA is roughly half black. Could it be this black prosecutor is going after a white officer in order to enhance his chances of reelection?
Very likely that's one of the reasons he is doing it.
So the DA flat out lied about this, heard him say it explicitly. What a surprise.
Sounds like the other officer does not have to testify against himself but if the DA offers immunity for his testimony? In fact is it possible that the other officer is trying to get such an offer?
It is possible or even likely. Primarily, the DA douche is running for reelection. Officer Brosner is the one who lost his taser. Don't put it within reach of the subject and not use it. Use it or lose it.
The tazers I’ve heard sound pretty much like a gunshot.
“The tazers I’ve heard sound pretty much like a gunshot.”
Given those indisputable facts no crime was committed by either cop while,OTOH,a number of serious crimes,including one under Federal law,was committed by the dead punk.
Defund the DA?
Aren’t guns usually a lot louder?
“Aren’t guns usually a lot louder?”
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.