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 ...
ACLU is behind it.
Keep your word, weenies.
Maybe it would make for a nice bit of cash from a book deal....if I was a publisher, I would be trying to get someone on the grand jury to talk...just saying
And the DOJ is behind the ACLU.
I never heard anybody imply that the GJ decision was unanimous. Nor did it have to be.
Anyone want to bet on the background of this juror?
They really want to start a race war.
Just an attempt to discredit the grand jury in hopes of eliminating state grand juries.
Al Sharpton has already declared that there is something wrong with state grand juries that can only be fixed by Washington.
Whatever happened to the All Black Grand Jury that was supposed to meet least week? Haven’t seen anything about it.
“What (the grand juror) wants is to be able to be part of the conversation.”
Or really, just wants to write a book and profit.
since there were 3 blacks on the GJ, pretty safe to assume at least one wouldn’t be color blind
Considering the fact that witnesses were apparently murdered, I doubt all the jurors want the info out there for good reason.
with the insinuation that Brown, not Officer Darren Wilson, was the wrongdoer. No grand jurors have spoken publicly about the case.
Well DUH! Brown was the wrongdoer. When you attack a police officer that makes you the wrongdoer1
The case didn’t belong in front of a grand jury. Disclosure of the evidence presented to it would serve to embarrass the DA.
But the one who will profit doesn’t give a damn about the others!
We are seeing an example of justice based on popular opinion instead evidence, it's called a Lynch Mob.
Good times.
(Have to find that picture I took of Ms. Williams ...)
This nothing more than a juror wanting his/her fifteen minutes of fame and eventually a book deal, tv appearances and who knows what else.
I disagree. Post #8 gives the real reason for this.
(post 8)Just an attempt to discredit the grand jury in hopes of eliminating state grand juries. Al Sharpton has already declared that there is something wrong with state grand juries that can only be fixed by Washington.
Its a continuation of the civil rights era tactic of taking specific cases out of local jurisdiction where they could get no convictions and putting them in federal jurisdiction where they could get convictions.
While its true that some southern juries in those days were refusing to convict clearly guilty men, the constitution guaranteed their right to do so. Stripping jurisdiction from the state and creating the first hate crime laws were clearly unconstitutional and a far greater harm than allowing a few guilty men to walk free.
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.