Posted on 01/05/2015 9:48:17 AM PST by GIdget2004
A member of the grand jury that declined to indict the Ferguson police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown asked a federal court Monday to remove a lifetime gag order preventing jurors from discussing the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unnamed juror who wants to speak about the investigation but would be in violation of Missouri law by doing so. The lawsuit also questions St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s characterization that “all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges.”
The suit was filed against McCulloch, who oversaw the investigation, because his office would be responsible for bringing charges against the juror, according to the ACLU. McCulloch’s spokesman, Ed Magee, said his office had not seen the lawsuit and declined immediate comment.
“Right now there are only 12 people who can’t talk about the evidence out there,” ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said. “The people who know the most—those 12 people are sworn to secrecy. What (the grand juror) wants is to be able to be part of the conversation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kmov.com ...
I doubt this will go through. The only thing that can possibly happen is if the family sues the state which I am surprised they haven yet.
Someone has a book deal $$$ ....if they can talk.
Gee, wonder if the plaintiff is one of the 3 or one of the 9?
Sounds like this only has the potential of causing more riots, deaths and police shootings.
Why not grant his request?
I would allow the juror to go public...on the condition that any money earned as a result go to charity...
Watch the juror chock on that condition!
“a lifetime gag order preventing jurors from discussing the case.”
“Lifetime”?
So much for star chambers and transparency...
If the ACLU is involved what are the odds that this person is a potential spoiler, not in agreement with the majority decision?
or freedom of speech
I thought it was unanimous.
Sounds like one of the jurors has already talked to someone.
The lawsuit also questions St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s characterization that “all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges.”
They probably want to sell their story.
Frankly I'd be pretty pissed if you gagged me and then spoke for me.
Let me guess…weren’t there three black members of the 12-person jury?
And all it took to decide were 9 votes?
Aka, allowing testimony that was known to be fraudulent.
There. Fixed it.
From what I have read it is illegal in Missouri to release the voting record of the Grand Jurors.
Facts About the Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
"Robert McCullough, the St. Louis County prosecutor, explicitly stated that he would not disclose whether the grand jury was unanimous. Under Missouri State Code § 540.260, nine of the twelve jurors need to agree in order to indict someone for a crime. Since there was no indictment, all we know is that there were not nine votes to indict Darren Wilson on any given charge. Indeed, there could have been eight votes to indict him on one or more of the charges. Or the decision not to indict could have been unanimous. But we don't know. And given that Missouri State Code § 540.310 prohibits grand jurors from disclosing any individual juror's vote, we likely never will.
It probably means someone thought the jurors were too dumb to grasp that Wilson just had to be guilty because RACISM! you know.
Could have said this in one breath, and “made the characterization” in another one.
Many people looking for a way to make money off this?
Sue the state for what?
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.