• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ferguson: Grand juror in Missouri police shooting case sues prosecutor

TreVader

Platinum Member
http://news.yahoo.com/grand-juror-missouri-police-shooting-case-sues-prosecutor-170237196.html

Some very interesting revelations about the Ferguson grand jury and what exactly we were told happened, versus what did happen!

(Reuters) - A member of the grand jury that declined to indict the white Missouri police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black 18-year-old sued the prosecutor in the case on Monday, criticizing the way evidence was presented to grand jurors and seeking court permission to speak publicly about the way the case was handled.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in St. Louis against St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch by the grand juror, whose name was withheld and was referred to as "Grand Juror Doe."

The lawsuit relates to the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown by officer Darren Wilson in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. Brown's death and the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson triggered months of protests over police treatment of African-Americans in the United States.

The suit argues that state laws prohibiting the grand juror from talking about the case are unconstitutional. Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Missouri, said the Brown case is an important public policy issue and the grand juror should be allowed to speak about the proceedings.

After the Nov. 24 announcement by McCulloch that the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, and the release by McCulloch of evidence presented, some critics accused the prosecutor of unfairly skewing the process in favor of the police officer.

A spokesman said McCulloch had no comment on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that evidence was presented to the grand jury in a manner markedly different than in previous cases heard by the same grand jury, with the "insinuation" that Brown was the "wrongdoer" rather than Wilson.

It also claims the prosecutor's office presented applicable laws to grand jurors "in a muddled and untimely manner" unlike presentations in other cases.

The grand juror also contends that McCulloch's public statements about the decision not to indict were not "entirely accurate," including the "implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit stated.

The grand jury in the case began meeting in May for a term originally scheduled to conclude in September. But that term was extended so the jurors could take up the Brown shooting.

Lawyers for Brown's family and some witnesses say he was trying to surrender when Wilson shot him multiple times. Wilson's supporters say the officer feared for his life and fired at Brown in self-defense.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
This is what interests me:


including the "implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,"


So apparently some jurors did think wilson deserved to be charged.
 
You need 9 out of 12.

You could have a 50/50 split, and you really aren't even close to an indictment.
 
I'm just wondering what on earth this grand juror is thinking. What did he see to make him do this.


I highly doubt brown was executed but it warrants a second look. At least, they should allow him to speak.
 
No? You don't think the juror should be allowed to speak? Why not?

A can of worms that shouldn't be opened. Regular trials are enough of a circus, and there needs to be something in place devoid of external influence, outside of the public. Nothing good comes from opening grand juries; there is no second chance with a grand jury, so the only thing opening it up would do is cause problems. If there are problems warranting action, the judge will resolve them.

If this person thinks there is a problem with the system, their issue is with the selection process for grand juries, not whether or not they should be sealed. Money grab / attention seeking behavior / instigator; the juror is one of the three aforementioned.
 
A can of worms that shouldn't be opened. Regular trials are enough of a circus, and there needs to be something in place devoid of external influence, outside of the public. Nothing good comes from opening grand juries; there is no second chance with a grand jury, so the only thing opening it up would do is cause problems. If there are problems warranting action, the judge will resolve them.

If this person thinks there is a problem with the system, their issue is with the selection process for grand juries, not whether or not they should be sealed. Money grab / attention seeking behavior / instigator; the juror is one of the three aforementioned.

What "can of worms" are you talking about? Your reply amounts to a non answer.

I tried googling and I couldn't even find a reason.
 
What "can of worms" are you talking about? Your reply amounts to a non answer.

I tried googling and I couldn't even find a reason.

Grand Juror seeking / making money deals for TV interviews, movies, books and etc...

Everything brought up in the article is just opinion on his part. That juror may very well have thought charges should be brought, but he is only 1. It takes 9 of 12 minimum as far as I know.
 
No? You don't think the juror should be allowed to speak? Why not?

For the same reason the transcripts should not have been released.

But then again the point here is to fuck up the grand jury process for the future.

Regardless of your or anyone else's opinions on this one case, this overwhelmingly highlights the need to protect innocent defendants from the public, and if the grand jury process is going to be torn apart because some don't like it being secretive... it's never a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You're not going to get what you want if you continue to pursue the path you're pursuing.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and there is little that can be done to distinguish between genuine lawsuit for integrity and a populist-driven lawsuit for the riches. No chance it can be discussed civilly on an internet forum 😛 And with that I make myself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show!
 
Forgive my cynicism, but I am wondering if the grand juror wants to be paid for some "exclusive" interviews and maybe a book as well. Certainly unless they are corroborated by other ones I would question anything they have to say on this case.
 
Forgive my cynicism, but I am wondering if the grand juror wants to be paid for some "exclusive" interviews and maybe a book as well. Certainly unless they are corroborated by other ones I would question anything they have to say on this case.

That is the thing.It is just one juror that has their panties in a wad... If there were say 4 or 5 that were bitching I would think there could be something to it. But one of twelve. No way.
 
Forgive my cynicism, but I am wondering if the grand juror wants to be paid for some "exclusive" interviews and maybe a book as well. Certainly unless they are corroborated by other ones I would question anything they have to say on this case.

Yep, not to mention that juror probably wants to throw all the other jurors that didn't join in the quest for mob justice under the bus. Hopefully this attempt to cash in fails.
 
Good luck, it would change our jury system if successful.

Not sure if it would be a good change

And good luck finding a lawyer that's willing and competent enough to sue another lawyer
 
Juror wants to get paid.

And a juror stupid enough to file suit to speak, is also probably stupid enough to be the one lone juror that didn't understand what was happening in the first place.

These are common folk picked out from the community. This juror could be the town idiot that was told if they could tell their story they would get paid.
 
I love how one juror wants to speak about what really happened and they are already discredited.

Want to take the DAs word for what happened? Because he's been so completely honest.
 
I love how one juror wants to speak about what really happened and they are already discredited.

Want to take the DAs word for what happened? Because he's been so completely honest.

Were the transcripts not enough to know what *really* happened?

The juror doesn't want to speak, the juror wants to file a lawsuit. I've never heard of a grand jury juror suing the prosecutor in any previous case. Why now? Like I said, no way to discount the $$ factor, no way to discount the chaos for no other purpose than to f-up grand jury proceedings in the future, force change, motivation many people have. Or it could be genuine.

But, of course, you want validation that the process was fucked up, and you want those who conducted the prosecution punished. Don't discount your own bias, and your own little glimmer of hope, in your assessment of the news story. And that's the uphill battle, because this movement has to work double-time to convince the public the lawsuit is genuine.

Look at the Mall of America protest. Look at the Black Brunch protests. Their goal is annoyance, rather than any solid issue. Is it so difficult to imagine this lawsuit as just more annoyance?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top