Why didn't everyone from Prez down focus all their pressure on Jay Nixon appt a Special Prosecutor?

[Leopolds Ghost]

We have all seen how fair and unbiased the smirking McCulloch is now.

Does anyone still think he should have been given the benefit of the doubt as a reliable agent of the interest of the victim and society here?

Does he pursue every case against a defendant where the victim is presumed to be a "skell" by the cops, or only when the victim is black?

The worst part is he will join the smirking ranks of Giuliani on TV, claiming blacks are responsible for 80% of crime, his jailed former police chief (the hypocritical former lover of the DC police chief Ramsay (sp?) both famous for rounding up and arresting protest movements) and people like Gingrich, as cable news "expert" commentators, representing the expert opinions of society's "winners".

And CNN's current FBI commentator who agreed with Wilson that Michael Brown looked like a "demon".

We all knew they had one crack at the apple here of having a fair and public trial.

Can defendants now sue if they're not given a full 3-month grand jury testimony?

[Hoyt]

1. At this point, I'd go after prosecuter for some kind of conspiracy to save Darren Wilson.

I think the best that will happen is feds might find discrimination in Ferguson police department, and some incidents of racism. Police Department might see some changes, and they might require officers to wear video recorders. I think I read they'd purchased some.. Also I hope Wilson leaves.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Are prosecutors protected by prosecutorial discretion from "pattern and practice" allegations?

Part of the "problem" is that the US system supposedly favors defendants, especially when they're police, so there's no way to appeal a non-indictment and allege bias and wrongdoing in the process to an appellate court. I think.

[99th_Monkey]

4. That is totally fucked up

We have a thing called "mis-trials" and that is for a good reason. Because sometimes juries and/or judges fuck things up so badly that it is required.

Is this same precept not applicable to GJs?

[mythology]

35. We don't have mistrials because somebody doesn't like what the jury decided

But that's actually irrelevant as mistrials are there for instances in which a case must be retried but wouldn't be able to due to double jeopardy. Jeopardy hasn't attached in this case, because it hasn't gone to a trial, just a grand jury. So in theory, the case could be sent before another grand jury.

That said, it's unlikely to happen in this case because the evidence really isn't clear cut. Witnesses have conflicting stories, some of them changed their stories, etc.

[99th_Monkey]

36. You sound very much like the fake "prosecutor" Mr. McCulloch

There are many many people who feel strongly that this case was never
handled correctly, and that McCulloch should have recused himself because
he was never seeking an indictment, but rather was championing the
cause of Officer Wilson from beginning to end, plain and simple.

In fact, Mr. McCulloch is President of BackStoppers, a police support
group that raised over $400,000 for Wilson, don't you know?

So seriously, you see nothing wrong with the way this came down?

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. The standard isn't "the evidence is clear-cut". It's existence of a compelling prosecutorial theory.

That's the meaning of probable cause (to indict). Reasonable doubt only applies at the trial.

And as I heard on cable news recently, some prosecutors feel that a grand jury should be re-empaneled because of the procedural irregularities with this one (having it be a full 3-month grand jury with the defense entitled to present all their theories and claims, and no one speaking for the victim)

[99th_Monkey]

3. That is a great question. I'm curious about that too. nt

[branford]

5. Apparently, Gov. Nixon did not have the authority to unilaterally appoint a special prosecutor,

and prosecutors almost always have very broad immunity to any lawsuits.

Except in very limited matters that vary by jurisdiction, a prosecutor is not actually required to pursue charges or trial on any potential criminal matter or request an indictment from a grand jury. Even without the immunity, McColloch would not be subject to any successful lawsuit. Also note that the length of time a grand jury investigates a matter, short or long, would not even be relevant to a potential civil action (absent proof of actual illegality in the grand jury), as an indictment had not yet issued, and issues like a right to a speedy trial have not yet been implicated.

With respect to a special prosecutor in MO, the MO AG stated that such a prosecutor could only be appointed upon request from the local elected DA or upon an actual (not necessarily perceived) conflict of interest or similar legal disqualification. As McCulloch obviously refused to withdraw and there was no legally recognized conflict of interest, Gov. Nixon appeared powerless other than public entreaties and pressure. Elections for D.A.'s have consequences.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RjOfidvPOtcJ:https://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/missouri-attorney-general-chris-koster-statement-regarding-appointment-of-special-prosecutor-in-michael-brown-case1.docx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. Thanks for the factual information. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. So this means McColloch was even more of a smirking, dishonest twat than he appears at first glance?

Demanding that the Governor compel him to step down? I thought he said he would step down if the Governor asked.

[branford]

8. I think both McColloch and Nixon are politicians, no more, no less.

First, I don't believe that Nixon actually ever demanded that McCulloch withdraw.

Second, politicians, everything from D.A.'s to governors, and regardless of party (remember both McCulloch and Nixon are Democrats) rarely, if ever, abdicate any power and view such acts as political liabilities during elections.

Third, the statements by both men were carefully phrased, little more than posturing, and not legally enforceable.

Fourth, Nixon trying to pressure McCulloch to resign due the perceived conflict of interest because McCulloch is the son of a police officer murdered by a black man decades ago, would be likely be politically disastrous for Nixon and gain sympathy for McCulloch with a great many of the citizens of Missouri and St. Louis, the only electorate of relevance to these men. All politics is local, and Missouri is not California or Vermont.

Fifth, in furtherance of point 4, the cynic in me assumes that all Brown and Wilson options were carefully polled by both men, and they each acted according to their believed long-term political benefit.

Now, only you can answer if you believe "smirking, dishonest twat" and "politician" are synonymous.

[KittyWampus]

33. Using the word "twat" is as excessively sexist and offensive as "cunt". Please change your wording.

I would rather not alert your post. Thank you for your consideration.

[TorchTheWitch]

9. McCulloch wasn't the prosecutor for the case

That's what happens when you don't look at the facts.

The case was immediately assigned to Kathi Alizadeh and Shelia Whirley. McCulloch made one initial appearance to introduce them, go over basic grand jury procedures again (all of them were already close to the end of their term before it was extended so this was a refresher) and that was the extent of his involvement.

Other than his name appearing on the grand jury transcripts as a prosecutor for the state for this case it only appears on the transcript for his single initial appearance. Thereafter, he is no longer listed as an attorney for the state and Alizadeh and Whirley are.

McCulloch is the head of the prosecution OFFICE. He does not and cannot handle every case, and he did not handle this one. He does not handle grand juries, period. Other prosecuting attorneys within the prosecutor's office are assigned for each grand jury term probably on a rotating basis. He also assigns all homicide cases to attorneys in his office to prosecute. I have no idea whether or not he ever prosecutes any case himself.

The point being he was not the prosecuting attorney for the grand jury on this case, period. When he was not the prosecuting attorney for this case why would a special prosecutor be necessary? The point to a special prosecutor is so have someone else prosecute the case - other attorneys were ALREADY assigned to prosecute the case and did so.

Further, what does having a police officer for a father that was killed by a criminal have to do with making him too biased to prosecute the case even if he was going to be? It makes him biased against criminals who murder people? That's any prosecutor's job. It makes him biased in favor of police officers? Seeing as a prosecutor's job is to prosecute criminals forcing them to work hand in glove with the police to furnish the evidence against them wouldn't this make ALL Prosecutors biased in favor of cops? After that, all that's left is that his father was a cop. Does having a father as a cop make a prosecutor biased against criminals? Aren't prosecutor's supposed to have a bias against criminals? Seeing as all prosecutors work in conjunction with the police to try any criminal case how is it that McCulloch would be biased had he prosecuted this case when the same could be said for ANY prosecutor?

But none of that matters since McCulloch didn't prosecute the grand jury case ANYWAY.

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury-volume-1/

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

[Nye Bevan]

10. Thank you (nt)

[Lurks Often]

11. Shhh, how dare you disturb the group think outrage with facts!!!

[morningfog]

13. He was the head of the office that prosecuted the case.

He was certainly the decision maker when it came to presenting evidence not typically presented.

A special prosecutor would have removed him from that oversight and management role.

[Nye Bevan]

15. What evidence do you think should have been withheld from the grand jury?

The forensic evidence which discredited the witness testimony, perhaps?

[morningfog]

16. Not even YOU can deny that this was disparate treatment from any other average defendant.

The question is not "what should have been withheld"?

The question is why was s very, very much given to the grand jury when that is not the practice for every other defendant in the state and the country.

The bottom line is. If the prosecutors had wanted an indictment, as they do with all other defendants, they could have easily gotten it.

They clearly went into this seeking "no bill." Again, not even YOU can deny that.

[Nye Bevan]

18. This was a very unusual case.

Normally a prosecutor only seeks an indictment for a case that he believes he can win. In other words, he believes that there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a case the evidence he has is so strong that he has no trouble at all obtaining an indictment from a grand jury, because all the grand jury needs is probably cause, which is way below reasonable doubt. That is why in the vast majority of cases the grand jury returns an indictment. Even if a prosecutor thinks there is probable cause, he looks ahead to the trial stage and if he does not think that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt he will not bring charges.

So in normal circumstances a prosecutor would never attempt to prosecute a case such as this where witnesses prevaricated, changed their stories, and were discredited by the forensics. He would know that he was guaranteed to lose at trial and would not seek an indictment. But this case was a little different, and the prosecutor did not want to take the responsibility of choosing to drop charges himself. So this is a very rare example of a prosecutor going to a grand jury with what he knew was an unwinnable case; he presented all the evidence and the result was what he expected.

As I have said elsewhere, this is not to say that Wilson is a swell guy who did the right thing. It could well be that if he had handled the situation better Brown would still be alive. I am talking solely from a legal perspective.

[morningfog]

21. There was nothing unusual about this case from a prosecution standpoint. Quit lying

and defending this.

You fundamentally do not understand the grand jury process. Prosecutors go to grand juries with far less evidence than they had here and get indictments. They go even if they are aware of far more exculpatory evidence than they had here. They go if they think they have probable cause. They do it to get an indictment and leverage for pleas, negotiations, information, etc.

Prosecutors get literally thousands of indictments that they KNOW will never go to trial and indeed many cases get dismissed for lack of evidence before trial.

There was nothing unusual or special about this case, other than the fact that the prosecutor did not want to indict. It was special treatment because he was a white cop who killed a black kid. Your apologia is transparent and consistent with your history of questionable posts on race.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Nope, prosecutors prosecute cases they think they can win.

And that does not generally include cases which depend mainly on eyewitness testimony from witnesses that have been comprehensively discredited.

[morningfog]

28. So much bullshit. Pure utter bullshit.

You are trying too hard now.

[Nye Bevan]

30. er, OK.

Have a good day.

[morningfog]

31. If I said what I thougt, I'd get a hide. But, you know and everyone else knows your motives here.

[Nye Bevan]

32. See, now that's why I love the DU jury system.

While it doesn't necessarily elevate the level of your discourse, it does prevent you from spewing invective at me that would put a hidden post on your record. (Notwithstanding the ominous hints of what you would like to say, if only those mean jurors would not hide it).

Happy Thanksgiving!

[morningfog]

37. In other words, disruptors can disrupt while

insulated from being called out. Keep skirting the line.

[Avalux]

22. Is that you McCulloch?

When he spoke to the grand jury, he told them "this is a very unusual case".

So you believe there was no probable cause, you believe there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a trial? And I am to understand that a prosecutor won't want to go to trial, and even dissuade a grand jury, if he thinks he may not win.

A prosecutor wants a trial so he has an opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. Especially one with an outrageous and inconsistent story such as Wilson's (which he told to the grand jury, unchallenged).

[Nye Bevan]

23. No prosecutor wants to go to trial on a case that he knows he cannot win.

And your last paragraph is patently false; almost no defendant chooses to take the stand in a trial. Wilson would almost certainly have been no exception.

[Avalux]

24. So he'd have to know with 100% certainty?

That's bullshit and you know it.

[Nye Bevan]

26. "He'd have to know with 100% certainly" is, indeed, a bullshit statement.

And a statement that, incidentally, I did not make.

[Avalux]

27. "knows he cannot win".

Please then, tell me what your words actually mean, since you say I interpreted them incorrectly. "Knows he cannot win" by how much - 30%, 50%, 80%? Just a little bit?

[morningfog]

29. You either have no idea how prosecutors work, or you are playing dumb

for another reason.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. Lawrence O'Donnell astutely refuted your "facts" at every turn before they were even presented. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

38. Not typical doesn't mean wrong or illegal

It means not typical. He has no requirement to present evidence that is only usually given, and what is usually given is entirely one sided and prejudicial and so much so that had the prosecutor made the decision whether to charge or not and for what on their own they wouldn't.

There are strict rules of evidence concerning what the grand jury sees or hears and they have very broad powers to see and hear any evidence that exists or subpoena any testimony if they so desire. The prosecutor can't only show the jurors that evidence that is favorable to the prosecution since that would eliminate the jurors being presented with certain evidence they believe there would be. For example, the prosecutor can't decide to not present into evidence the autopsy results because they don't favor the prosecution because the jurors would know that one had been performed and demand to see it. Nor could the prosecutor redact any information from the autopsy that isn't favorable to the prosecution while present the rest since the jurors would know that they weren't being given a complete autopsy. The prosecutor can't also decide to not present any witness testimony if there are no witnesses that favor the prosecution and just pretend that there is no eyewitness testimony nor can they redact portions of eyewitness testimony since in the case the jurors would know that there was eyewitness testimony and demand to see all of it.

This case was so impossible to bring charges on that the reason McCulloch sent it to a grand jury was because he already knew from the evidence that he or any other prosecutor - even a cop hating one - would not have a shred of probable cause. Forensic evidence either favored Wilson or didn't result in anything. There was no forensic evidence that favored the prosecution. As for eyewitness testimony there are more than enough that favor Wilson and none that favor the prosecution as those that did were not credible because they either contradicted what the witness had claimed previously or contradicted the forensic evidence.

By giving it to a grand jury he would not be in the position of having blame leveled at him for not bringing charges, and also giving the grand jury the ability to charge what they might be able to without his telling them that he wanted Wilson charged with X crime. If you read through the evidence there simply isn't' any that favors the prosecution. NONE. And if a grand jury can't find any reason to charge him with anything than a trial jury has not a prayer of finding him guilty of anything when in a trial Wilson can mount a defense, have an attorney that can object to any questioning, keep certain evidence from the jury and where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt not the probable cause standard of a grand jury.

The issue here is not that McCulloch or whatever prosecutor decided to give them evidence not normally given is because to NOT give any of that evidence when the jurors would know it existed and would demand to see it would undermine the appearance of fairness that the prosecution is required to have because the prosecutor is basically in charge of the grand jury. There is no defense, no objections, no judge. Also, we don't have any idea if they got all the evidence or not since the only evidence we are aware of is what was given to the grand jury. For all we know there may very well be evidence so favorable to Wilson that the jurors weren't aware existed that might have been kept from them. We have no way of knowing and can't know since grand jurors are sworn to secrecy.

And about the jurors themselves... since they investigate many cases during a term period they never know what cases they'll be given and are not subject to the same rules as trial jurors... they can watch any media about the case, do any personal investigation on their own, etc. In reading through testimony it is apparent that several jurors know a hell of a lot more about this case and what evidence would exist than any trial jury could God damn dream of. with all the media coverage for months on end.

A special prosecutor in this case would not have made any difference since even without all the evidence the grand jurors received they still have the right to demand any evidence or testimony they want if they know it exists, and the simple fact that in this case there just ISN'T any evidence that is favorable to the prosecution. And that's because what occurred happened just as Wilson said that it did.

And then they get to deliberations and the application of the law. The law concerning use of lethal force in every state is far more broad than it is for civilians, and in fact is an entirely separate law. That's because unlike civilians police officers have a duty to pursue a suspect, determine if they are an immediate danger to themselves or others and act accordingly whether that means arresting them or having to shoot them.

This is MO law concerning lethal force and police officers:

563.046. Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.

1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

I already said why there is no reason to have removed him from prosecuting himself much less remove him on oversight or management. It would have had nothing to do with the outcome or what evidence the jury received if there was a special prosecutor. When there IS no evidence in support of the prosecution it's not going to make any difference what evidence the jurors received and when they can demand ANY evidence or testimony they want.

Have you even looked at the evidence in this case? There is not one speck of evidence either forensic or eyewitness testimony that is favorable to the prosecution. NONE. Is it any wonder why I'm so disgusted with the attitude of some many here and have from the outset that no one was willing to wait for an investigation to find out the facts of the matter and that now that we do have that evidence - REAMS of it - despite the FACT that there is not one single iota of evidence or eyewitness testimony that gives probable cause to charge Wilson no one is looking at it.

[morningfog]

39. So much apologia. Blech.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Translation: "I have no problem with killer cops so long as they only kill people appropriately" n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

14. Your lengthy jeremiad aside, McCulloch is the one who made the decision to

present the case to the GJ in a highly unorthodox (if not unprecedented) fashion. That is, instead of directing his ADAs to present to the GJ only the evidence they thought established probable cause that a crime had been committed, e.g., the three eyewitness' testimony that coincided perfectly with one another, and ask the GJ to return an indictment, this DA decided to have his ADAs put EVERYTHING before the GJ, such that Dana Milbank of the Washington Post called the GJ proceedings a 'farce':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-ferguson-tragedy-becoming-a-farce/2014/09/12/e52226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html

The venue for Wilson's defense to challenge the evidence that established that probable cause is in a trial by jury. Instead, the case was tried in a secret Star Chamber proceeding. In the end, it doesn't really matter who the little Eichmanns were who were executing McCulloch's strategy. What matters is that a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred. And shame on you for defending the DA and the killer cop in this case.

[Nye Bevan]

17. The DA knew that these witnesses would be made mincemeat of in any trial.

He knew that this was an unwinnable case, that the evidence did not come anywhere near to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So yes, he did not want an indictment and a trial that would have lasted months and ended in a guaranteed not guilty verdict. So he presented all the evidence to the grand jury and sure enough, they established that far from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there was not even probable cause.

Please note that I am not arguing that Wilson is a great guy who did the right thing. I am writing strictly from a legal standpoint.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. These witnesses were black. I remember when CNN breathlessly said "we now have a WHITE WITNESS"

"Not that they are more credible or anything, but they might be seen to be more credible by a grand jury, because they do not share the victim's RACE!"

Of course you can't take the word of some "negro" right? Especially if three or more of them say the same thing, and Wilson's testimony is at odds with the facts. It's the white man's testimony that is assumed to be true.

[librechik]

20. exactly--And he did it to deflect blame onto the jury for his shenanigans

[KittyWampus]

34. He is the head of the office of prosecutor and as influential on proceedings as a newspaper editor

is to what and how stories are run.

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. When you say "criminals" you're setting up a connotation that the victim is a criminal vs. the cop.

So why did Alizadeh and Whirley spend 3 months empaneling the Grand Jury, presenting evidence that did not help the prosecution at trial? Hmmmmmmm? Why did he personally deliver a rambling address at 10 pm defending the non-indictment, hmmm? If this were a case where the (white) community was outraged, a District Attorney could lose his job for botching a grand jury like that (like they did.) The buck stops there. But you are clearly satisfied and not outraged.

[KingCharlemagne]

12. I called for it here back on October 19. My thread got no responses and

dropped off the radar:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025687658

[librechik]

19. because all the "liberals" are scared to death of the gun toting Confederates

that rule us now.

[Wella]

45. Maybe they'll do it for this case:

White teen killed by black cop in Alabama

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/white-teen-gilbert-collar-killed-by-black-cop-trev/#ixzz3KPsgxAZU

...Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

The circumstances mirror those of the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs by Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in Ferguson....

Gil Collar Grand Jury Clears University Of South Alabama Cop Of Wrongdoing In Student's Death
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/gil-collar-grand-jury-trevis-austin_n_2812514.html

A University of South Alabama police officer was cleared of wrongdoing on Friday by a grand jury who said he was defending himself when he shot and killed 18-year-old freshman Gil Collar, AL.com reports.

In a press conference Friday, Mobile County District Attorney Ashley Rich told reporters that Collar was high on a relatively new hallucinogenic drug called 25I-NBOMe.

The drug helps to explain the bizarre sequence of events that led to Collar's death on Oct. 6 and the national controversy that followed. The Associated Press reported that Collar was running through campus nude, apparently under the influence of what was originally thought to be LSD. Collar allegedly banged on the campus police station's windows, prompting Officer Trevis Austin to exit the station -- gun drawn -- to investigate.

Police said Collar repeatedly charged Austin. The student's mother, Bonnie Smith Collar, disputed the police chief's recollection, saying surveillance tape showed that the slightly built, unarmed, and naked young man never came within five feet of the officer and didn't pose a threat extreme enough to justify shooting him from less than 10 feet away.

Public opinion divided between those who argue the officer responded to a real threat to his safety posed by a then-irrational individual and others who contend the officer overreacted to a simple security problem with a gun, rather than nonlethal means like pepper spray, a stun gun or a baton. While students carried signs that read, "Gil was murdered," CNN's Piers Morgan noted that sometimes young people experiment with drugs and learn from it, and sometimes the experimentation goes horribly wrong.

"Gil Collar could have been my son," Morgan said. ...

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. They should.

There are plenty of police officers who happen to be black, who have been atrocious in treatment of suspects, including low-income minorities.

Everyone I know who has police friends tells me it's like being in a gang -- a gang enforcing the law instead of breaking it. Group solidarity trumps race and all other considerations. You may think a police officer wants to be your "friend" but if his sergeant orders him to beat you up, he usually will. The profiling comes from the top -- it was encouraged by figures like Giuliani and McCulloch who trumpet their thinly veiled racism far and wide.