Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ferguson grand juror sues to be allowed to talk about case
wthr ^ | Jan 05, 2015 | Jim Salter

Posted on 01/05/2015 6:01:52 PM PST by digger48

ST. LOUIS - A member of the grand jury that declined to indict a Ferguson police officer in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown contends in a lawsuit filed Monday that the prosecutor in the case has wrongly implied that all 12 jurors believed there was no evidence to support charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of the unnamed juror, who wants to be allowed to talk publicly about the case but could face charges for doing so because of a lifetime gag order. The juror also says he or she came away with the impression that evidence was presented differently than in other cases, with the insinuation that Brown, not Officer Darren Wilson, was the wrongdoer. No grand jurors have spoken publicly about the case.

(snip)

"In Plaintiff's view, the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate - especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit says.

The suit was filed against McCulloch, who oversaw the investigation, because his office would be responsible for bringing charges against the juror. 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."

The suit also contends that legal standards in the case were discussed in a "muddled" and "untimely" manner.

(Excerpt) Read more at wthr.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: digger48

Amazing! Why would a grand juror want to discuss this case? They knew at the time, it would be illegal.


21 posted on 01/06/2015 6:22:50 AM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

If this is allowed and the grand juror gets to talk, no matter what side they are on, this can of worms opened will lead to ALL GRAND JURY CASES OPENED for Jurors to talk...another boondoggle for the Nation. None of those cases are safe from prosecution now, if that happens.


22 posted on 01/06/2015 6:32:08 AM PST by Kackikat ('If it talks like a traitor, acts like a traitor, then by God it's a traitor.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

You may be right, but I have no doubt there are some jury members looking at big bucks.


23 posted on 01/06/2015 11:12:29 AM PST by animal172 (Calling Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson