home

Ferguson DA Interview: Says Some Witnesses Lied

Ferguson DA Rob McCulloch broke his silence today. In an interview, he said that he thinks some grand jury witnesses lied.

[McCulloch] acknowledged that witnesses he did not believe to be truthful had come before the jurors. Mr. McCulloch said that one female witness, who provided testimony that appeared to bolster Officer Wilson’s account of events, “clearly wasn’t present” when the shooting occurred.

....[He] added that the grand jury also heard from other witnesses whose testimony was also in doubt. “It went both directions,” he said.

McCulloch said he decided to let them testify even though he thought they were lying. He wanted the grand jury to hear everything. [More...]

McCulloch said he had no regrets about letting grand jury members hear from non-credible witnesses. “Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said. He added that he would've been criticized no matter his decision.

He cited the maxim that the prosecutor's obligation is not to indict but to see justice done. What about the maxim that a lawyer shouldn't present testimony he believes to be perjured? Rule 4.3 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say:

A lawyer shall not knowingly...offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.... A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

If he was going to be criticized anyway, why not decide to be criticized for doing the right thing and blocking untruthful testimony, rather than perpetuating it?

Buzzfeed has written excerpts from the interview. Apparently, the witness McCullogh was referring to was “Witness 40,” Sandra McElroy. The Smoking Gun has the details on who she is and why her testimony was false.

FBI agents didn't believe her when they interviewed her and told her it was a crime to lie to federal agents. The next day, local prosecutors called her as a witness. They also played the tape of her interview the day before to the FBI. She was called back 11 days later and the prosecutor let her use notes she said she made after witnessing the events. You can view some of them here.

The Smoking Gun has 18 pages of her comments on social media and other indicators her testimony was made up to protect Wilson.

Here is her grand jury testimony. At least the prosecutor (a woman, not McCulloch) challenged her, warned her about perjury and told her elements of her story didn't match up. The prosecutor also got her to admit using racial slurs.

Did the grand jury discount her testimony? I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Especially with the prosecutor basically accusing her of being a racist and lying. But that's not the point. The point is, they might not have. Since state and federal agents and the prosecutor didn't believe her, there was no reason to put her on and a lot of reasons not to allow her to testify. And why keep her on for 2/12 hours and call her back a second time other than to allow her to try and salvage some credibility? I wonder how many other witnesses got 2 1/2 hours before the grand jury to tell their story. (Sorry, I haven't checked. All the transcripts are here.)

McCulloch justifies the decision to put her on as a witness not on the grounds that he was credible, but that he would have been criticized either way. Had he not put her on, Wilson's supporters and police would have been angry. By putting her on, it's Brown's supporters that are angry. I don't think the decision to call a witness before the grand jury should be based on who will be upset by your decision. It should be based on whether the prosecutor thinks the witness has relevant and credible information on the matter being investigated. Here, McCulloch did not. And he put her on anyway. Even if he's telling the truth he didn't call her to bolster Wilson's case, it's still a troubling decision.

< Obama Says Sony Made a Mistake in Canceling "The Interview" | TRAC Releases Full Report on ISIS Mass Beheadings of Syrians >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    Cynicism isn't enough, but it's all I have.

    Request for investigation for (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 06:27:46 AM EST
    prosecutorial misconduct.

    A joint House and Senate committee is investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops to prevent burning and looting in Ferguson on Nov. 24, the night McCulloch announced that the grand jury would not indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the August shooting death of Brown.

    Rep. Karla May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer, asking that the investigation expand to look at whether McCulloch committed prosecutorial misconduct. Link

    Doubt this will go anywhere but a request has been made.


    More on this (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    Former Federal Prosecutor Jonathan Shapiro discussed the possible sanctions St. Louis Country Prosecutor Bob McCulloch could be facing for putting witness 40 on the stand in the Ferguson case.

    At 2.57 in the video Jonathon Shapiro discusses the legal and ethical obligations regarding putting a witness on the stand that he knew was lying.

    Parent

    Shapiro (none / 0) (#53)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    SHAPIRO: Well, he shouldn't and no lawyer should. The rules of professional conduct prohibit it, rule 3.3 specifically says a lawyer shall not put a witness before a tribunal, including a grand jury, if the lawyer, including a prosecutor knows the person is not telling the truth. You can't do it. It's illegal. It's called suborning perjury.

    Yep --

    It seems McCulloch's favorite witnesses were those who said they saw the things he wanted to hear -- even though they weren't there, or were too far away to see anything, or behind brick walls.

    Parent

    The word is "knows" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    ...Not "believes." It's written that way for a reason. The Missouri rules of professional conduct define the word as follows:

    "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

    Even saying that you are "sure" of something doesn't mean you have actual knowledge. As jeralyn pointed out, there is a different rule for when the attorney believes.

    A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.


    Parent
    Just so we are clear (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    you are defending putting a mentally ill person who is a known liar who was known to not have witnessed the event in a position of influencing a grand jury.

    Just so we are clear.
     

    Parent

    Just so we are clear (3.50 / 2) (#63)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    You do not have actual knowledge someone has lied about a particular thing just because that person is a "known liar" and is mentally ill.


    Parent
    Now this is a new twist (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    McCulloch has stated very clearly that her statements were false. He states that she got her information from the newspapers and she was nowhere near where the shooting occurred.

    Are you now claiming that McCulloch is a liar?

    Parent

    lol, Mo I was going to post this (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    to one of the lawyers commenting here, but, it just seems appropriate to post it as an addendum to yours. Hope you don't mind.

    The Ferguson Grand Jury Process was an abomination, and the fact that we have attorneys commenting on it here, in the manner they are, simply adds credence as to why so many people have such a negative opinion of this profession.

    If the lawyers commenting here on TL used the same verbal contortions, grammatical hieroglyphics, and psychological gymnastics in an actual trial, that would be fine. Trying to get their client acquitted by any means possible (within the law) is their duty. "Getting at the truth," or "seeking justice" is someone else's responsibility.

    But, the sad reality is that the attorneys here can't accept the fact that the conversation here is not a court trial. The majority of commenters here have, from the beginning, sought to find out the truth. Do the attorneys here really believe that we wanted Wilson convicted of some homicide, regardless of the facts? Did we "think" he acted outside the law? Did we "suspect" he may have been guilty of some felony? The answer is, of course.

    But, undoubtedly, and, unequivocally, we wanted the truth. And, just as emphatically, from the beginning, you guys wanted an acquittal. And, so, we were denied the opportunity to get the truth, and, you, through the actions of the prosecutor, used the sham Grand Jury to get your acquittal.

    To sum up, we were left disappointed because we were denied the opportunity to ascertain the truth, and, you were left with your shamefully attained acquittal, and the disdain of good, fair minded people everywhere.

    Congratulations on your victory.

    Parent

    Law is hard (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by toggle on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:05:59 AM EST
    I'm sorry that the law is complicated and our attempts at discussing it precisely are offputting. That's just the way it is.

    Let me just tell you one thing: trials do not determine the truth. Their purpose is to weigh the evidence and decide whether an accusation is sufficiently proven to authorize the state to act, i.e., to punish the accused.

    It's an axiom of our law that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent man. That's why criminal trials require the highest burden of proof in the law: beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence shows that the defendant probably committed a crime, but there exists a reasonable doubt, the jury not only can acquit, it is required to do so. Indeed, the evidence of guilt can be said to be "clear and convincing," but if there remains a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.  Trust me, you would not want it to be any other way.

    All of this debate about the grand jury is much ado about nothing, because when a prosecutor knows he cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, he is required to not even try.

    Insisting on a trial is insisting on violating Wilson's rights.

    Parent

    Oh it's much more simple (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    The was a small to almost zero chance that officer Wilson was going to be convicted of anything.

    The prosecuter knew this going in and only the inflammatory and misleading coverage of the evidence in the media and the racial storyline brought into the case by outside media and activists caused this prosecuter to do the simple thing from the beginning.  

    To feed the media beast and the political forces at work he used the Grand Jury to put all the info out there so people wouldn't just have to take his word for it that no case against officer Wilson existed.

    Unfortunately many have made up their mind, don't care if he probably didn't do anything wrong and just don't feel it's fair a white cop can shoot a young Black Man and nothing will happen.

    To them I say to sorry.  

    However IMHO you are not on the side of the Angels here and all the conspiracy theories and legal points are a smokescreen for the fact that you feel for whatever reason the only fair thing to do is charge what is most likely an innocent man according to the law with a crime so that maybe we'll get to some darker truth and your feelings will be justified.

    Last time I checked that's not how it's supposed to work.  We charge people we think are guilty of a crime.   We don't send people to trial in the hopes we'll find out a crime was actually committed.

    This is where you guys lose me.   The GJ was unusual?  What about a criminal trial where no one on the prosecution side thinks he's guilty of anything?   We shouldn't put individuals in jail because to pay for the sins of an entire system.

    That is absolutely not fair.

    Parent

    Not enough evidence to convict (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    Is a  legitimate reason not to conduct a Grand Jury or move for indictment.  Using the premise that there was not enough evidence to convict and the prosecutor knew this going in, no Grand Jury or no trial was necessary. Last time I checked, that is not the purpose of a Grand Jury.. Spending the time and money to conduct a CYA Grand Jury for political reasons or to please the media is not the proper function of a Grand Jury.

    You critize others for wanting a trial but you have no problem supporting a 3 1/2 month Grand Jury process that was structured to return a no bill. The purpose of a Grand Jury is not to provide the Prosecuting Attorney's office with positive PR or to give it political cover. To use this judicial process in this manner deems the process.

    Parent

    MOBlue still begs the question (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    How could McCulloch legally get all the evidence into the public domain in a more timely manner than the way he did?  I have asked you this at least twice before.  The fact that the attacks on the GJ's decision amount to claims that the evidence doesn't prove Wilson is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, shows that the decision by the jury and McCulloch was correct.

    Parent
    I did answer your question the first time (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:39:12 AM EST
    He could have said that there was not enough evidence against Wilson to convict and that he wasn't going to bring it to trial. Per Jeralyn:

    I don't think the decision to call a witness before the grand jury should be based on who will be upset by your decision. It should be based on whether the prosecutor thinks the witness has relevant and credible information on the matter being investigated.

    The same would apply to conducting a Grand Jury. The decision to conduct a Grand Jury should not be based on who will be upset if you do not go through the motions.

    The prosecutor's office does not as SOP release all evidence in cases where they choose not to pursue charges. They give a brief statement that states that all available evidence does not support charges being filed against the police officer.

    The other option McCulloch had was to allow a Special Prosecutor to take over the investigation.

    Parent

    You Didn't Answer Squat (3.00 / 3) (#156)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    All you have done is to deprecate the question.  McCulloch obviously believed that there is some chance of quieting down the rioters and looters, as quickly as possible, by releasing all the evidence as soon as possible.  (It is revealing that nobody has brought up evidence that the Grand Jury didn't see.)  Apparently you don't agree that full disclosure ASAP was necessary in this case.  OK, but be honest about what you are arguing.

    Parent
    Sure I answered you (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    And my answer stated my opinion clearly and honestly. You just didn't like the answer.

    He could have announced that there was not enough evidence to prosecute in a much shorter timeframe than 3 1/2 months. As stated in my comment, there is no requirement for a prosecutor to release all evidence in a case when they decide not to pursue an indictment.

    The prosecutor's office does not as SOP release all evidence in cases where they choose not to pursue charges. They give a brief statement that states that all available evidence does not support charges being filed against the police officer.

    BTW, your crystal ball is definitely cloudy and you mind reading skills need a lot of work. Delaying announcing that there would be no indictment, with all the leaks, did nothing to calm the situation down.

    Parent

    Should say (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    demeans the process.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#158)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    But for political reasons he was told to proceed to give every politician that could be hurt by a simple statement not to indict some political cover.

    I don't think for a second he made this decision alone.  

    Critics of this process are now arguing in circles.   Now the GJ was a waste of money?   Not if it helped prevent even worse looting which surely would have happened.  

    As for special counsel take that up with the Governor and would the evidence been any better?

    It's a circular argument with a big hole in the middle.

    No matter how you spin it there was never enough evidence to support an indictment.

    Parent

    Man, you not I, are spinning like crazy (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    You are the one who claimed that McCulloch knew that there was not enough evidence to convict going in. You, also,  stated that he used the Grand Jury to feed the media beast and the political forces at work And that is not the way it should work. Basically, I agreed that if that was the case, then it was definitely not the way it should work.

    if McCulloch knew from the beginning that there was not enough evidence to indict there was no need to have a Grand Jury. Conducting a needless Grand Jury is a waste of money any way you cut it.

    There is no evidence that delaying the announcement for 3 1/3 months and conducting a Grand Jury,that few in the AA and others believed would be unbiased, prevented worse looting from occurring. That  is your unsubstantiated opinion.

    You have claimed that McCulloch had no other option but to conduct a Grand Jury even when he was convinced that there was not enough evidence to convict. Well he did have another option. He could have stepped down and allowed a special prosecuter to take over the case. Would a special prosecutor have pursued going before a Grand Jury if he came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to convict? We don't know. Would the evidence been viewed or presented differently by another person. If it had been presented to a Grand Jury, would the Special Prosecutor decide to have people who he knew were lying, testify anyway. Would a Special Prosecutor give the jurors incorrect Use of Force rulings? We will never know. What we do know is that the AA community, as well as others, did not trust McCulloch.

    Your opinion that how this case was handled was a group effort is exactly that, your opinion. Your assertion that "he was told to proceed to give every politician that could be hurt by a simple statement not to indict some political cover," doesn't really stand up to scrutiny since he very publicly and harshly critised Gov. nixon on more than one occasion.

    Seems you all are tying yourselves up in knots claiming there was no evidence to indict and it shouldn't work the way it did but of course there had to be Grand Jury because McCulloch didn't have any other options (except he did). Think of the rioting and looting that would have occurred if he didn't have the Grand Jury. Except there was rioting and looting before and after the Grand Jury announcement was made.

    Parent

    Repeat after me (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    Special prosecutor, special prosecutor, special prosecutor. McCullough could have recused...but no he brings the circus to town. If he thought it was wrong to bring charges he could just say so, if he thought it was too politically hot he could and should have kicked it upstairs. Instead he turns the GJ process upside down and seemingly uses it to justify his own reasons for not prosecuting. If he thought the evidence for Wilson so so strong

    Parent
    Yep, as I said before... (none / 0) (#105)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 08:39:50 PM EST
    just because you committed the crime doesn't mean you're guilty.

    Parent
    Of course, they knew (none / 0) (#57)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    StLCo. police first took her "evidence" on  Sept. 11.
    On Oct. she gave a joint interview with St Louis Co PD & FBI. The FBI knew it then and made it clear to police...you think they did not tell DA?  
    Grand jury ADA chose to have her testify twice on 2 different days. On the second day #40 used her "Journal" filled with her memories that directly correlated to media accounts. Still ADA singled out Witness #40 on the last day Nov. 21 of testimony and said nothing. They cannot claim deniablity. McCullouh and both presenting ADAs knew Witness #40 was committing perjury.

    BTW: she has a name and is a familiar "false witness" in several past police investigations. Police knew her well.

    Parent

    Thanks for this post (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    it supports what some of us have been saying for a while.  Witness 40 and possibly others should never have been allowed in the room.  And the fact is there is no way to know if her testimony effected the outcome.  

    You won't find much argument (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    for your opening statement.

    But honestly, the competition is getting pretty damn stiff.

    ;-)

    What? No hissy fit?? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    You getting soft in your old age?

    lol

    Parent

    Some people live in a bubble (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    they don't know how to respond to different points of view so they attack.  

    Parent
    How is the testimony of Witness 40 (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:29:41 PM EST
    exculpatory?  Her testimony supports Wilson, but she made it up based on newspaper and media reports - she was never in the area.

    Witness 10 gave so many versions of what he saw that it's impossible to give any weight to his account.  But the many versions all supported Wilson.

    So, why put them on?  Because what they had to say - even if it wasn't based on what they actually witnessed - reinforced Wilson's version of the events for the grand jury.  It would help convince the grand jury that Wilson's actions were appropriate.

    This is the same tactic used to sell us a war in Iraq - do you remember all the "evidence" we were shown that proved Iraq had WMD?  Remember Colin Powell before the United Nations?  The yellow cake?  The aluminum tubes?  All lies - but by the time they were finished presenting all this manufactured evidence, and repeating it over and over and over, a lot of people put their support behind the war because they believed it.  Some people still believe it.

    And, just like the Ferguson grand jury, the case made for the Iraq war and the existence of WMD, was questioned.  But the lies prevailed.

    I think the one thing that might have changed the course of events would have been for Bob McCulloch - who claimed then and now that he was completely invested in a fair, thorough, and objective process - to have recused himself on the basis of his family history and the conflict it represented.

    We'll never know, though, will we?

    But I think it's ridiculous - and shameful, and a perversion of the system - for a district attorney to stand before the people and announce that witnesses his prosecutors put before the grand jury were lying, and worse, that as an officer of the court, he was declining to pursue charges against those who lied.

    There are people here who dismiss these concerns with a "what difference would it have made?"  Who think it would have been worse to have charged Wilson and put him on trial.  Maybe what would have been worse was the entire Ferguson PD being put on trial, for the police department's relationship with the community to have been put under the microscope, for Wilson's service with a now-abandoned PD to have been examined.

    When you think about where that could have led, it makes a little more sense the lengths McCulloch's office went to to keep its thumb on the scales of justice, and keep a whole lot of other asses safe at the same time.

    Apologists always miss the point (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:10:57 AM EST
    Most defenders of McCullough seem to be using some variation of the dammed if you do/don't argument.

    A. He did not want to bring charges (well within his rights).
    B. For "political correctness" he needed the cover of the GJ (this point is mostly inferred).
    C. He then "had" to use the GJ in an unusual manner to prove point A.

    I have 2 words to shoot down any rock/hard place arguments. All together now, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
    There were calls early on for one and early on McCullough declined to recuse himself. At some point HE declined a legal,ethical,honorable and even understandable escape hatch in order to put on the Barnum & Baily of all GJs. At some point HE declined doing the right to put himself in the position of of "having" to present known lies as evidence.
    The mind,it boggles.

    There still may be a special prosecutor (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    they are working on that and several recent developments would seem to help them get it.

    We can hope.

    Parent

    Right Chip (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    Lets just toss it in the waiting for justice queue (now serving #1776 out of 999999999999). You know this case would probably be already lost in the wake had it not been for the sad saga of witness 40.This too will fade.
    Attn: The waiting for justice desk is now closed for the holidays.Due to severe budget cuts we will be operating at half staff next year (good luck suckers).


    Parent
    Not chip (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    just sayin

    And his lawyers are in fact working on getting that GJ set aside and a new one formed.   I am less pessimistic that I was a month ago.

    Parent

    Reference Please (none / 0) (#146)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    I read anything about the Brown lawyers presenting a case that the GJ decision be set aside and a new one empaneled.  

    Parent
    WHAT a surprise (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:22:11 AM EST

    Missouri Governor Jay Nixon should appoint a special prosecutor to to investigate St.Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch and his two assistant prosecutors for engaging in a conspiracy to suborn perjury in the Michael Brown shooting case and Darren Wilson should be charged with murder for killing Michael Brown.

    FDL December 17

    This has been covers a lot.  Google could be your friend but I'm sure it won't be.  This was the first link that popped up and I'm not sure if it specifically covers a new grand jury and frankly you are not worth my time to make sure but if the above was undertaken it seems the other would follow.  Several officials are now calling for an official investigation of the DA and his conduct of this case.   That too a has been well covered.

    Happy?

    Parent

    Not Happy (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:48:22 AM EST
    That is not from the Brown family lawyers.  It is somebody, unknown to me unless he is MOBlue, who calls himself Masoninblue.  So what standing does he have to get a new GJ empaneled to go through the evidence in the Brown shooting and decide if Wilson should be indicted?  How is he going to do it?  Will he go to Ferguson and yell on his bullhorn, "Riot, riot, burn, burn the town down unless we get a Grand Jury that indicts Wilson."?

    Parent
    I am not Masoninblue (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    I'm a red head and M U U C H younger.

    He has all the standing he needs. He has the right to freedom of speech and the right to petition the government to address his grievances.

    It is fair to say that all supporters of Wilson are not Klan members eager for the opportunity to shot black people and likewise not all protesters support rioting or destroying property.

    Parent

    Un (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    Love that ipad (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    UNFORTUNATELY I don't really care that much what you believe or what you think.  And if I spent the rest of the day explaining why the sky is blue it wouldn't make any difference .  You've made that pretty clear.  The information is out there.  Find it if you want it.  I'm not your secretary.  

    Parent
    But for the record (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL BROWN`S FAMILY: Absolutely.
    We`ve talked to his family about this all day. And we do believe that this
    should go before a judge, and she should consider setting aside this grand
    jury`s decision based on the information that was presented by this
    prosecutor and especially this witness and other things.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    MELBER: That was Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump saying he hopes
    to have the Ferguson grand jury decision set aside. Now that push comes
    after new reporting by the Smoking Gun website on witness 40 identifying
    her as a woman with, quote, "a criminal past who has a history of making
    racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high profile St.
    Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a
    complete fabrication."
    --
    Joining me now is Anthony Gray, attorney for the family of Michael
    Brown.
    --
    MELBER: And when you see the talk of setting aside the grand jury,
    are you going to try to do that? And what would be your basis for that?

    GRAY: Well, we think that, number one, the lawyers ourselves that are
    on the Mike Brown team do not feel that we would be the best advocates for
    voiding this grand jury decision. We think that a public interest group
    would probably serve a greater good and disassociated with the underling
    cause of action.
    We don`t want to seem as though we`re vested in this outcome of it
    because we think it`s more of a public interest right that`s being pursued
    as opposed to an individual right for Mike Brown.
    --
    So yeah, we`re hoping that some outside group will take an interest in
    it and ask Judge McShane to void the grand jury decision, impanel another
    grand jury and allow for a special prosecutor to present the evidence in
    the case the second time.
    MELBER: Anthony Gray, thank you for being with us tonight.



    Parent
    Thanks for the Answer (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    So yeah, we`re hoping that some outside group will take an interest in
    it and ask Judge McShane to void the grand jury decision, impanel another
    grand jury and allow for a special prosecutor to present the evidence in
    the case the second time.

    Now is the time for an expert on Missouri law to explain if this can be done.  I guess the "outside group" has the ace in hole, "Judge McShane, empanel a new Grand Jury that is guaranteed to do what we want, or you know what will happen."

    Parent

    That answer was not for you (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    your answer was above it.  And frankly that comment and several others you made here make me feel like I need a shower.  

    Parent
    RJ (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    I guess the "outside group" has the ace in hole, "Judge McShane, empanel a new Grand Jury that is guaranteed to do what we want, or you know what will happen."

    When key witnesses have appeared before a Grand Jury and lied through their teeth, especially when the PAO knew it and let it happen, then don't you think  a new Grand Jury should be empanelled.

    Parent

    What Is the Criterion? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    I am waiting for one of the experts on Missouri law to explain the burden of proof that applies when the case is whether a new GJ should be empaneled.  My opinion is that original decision should stand.  If I were the judge who decides, I would want compelling evidence that Wilson committed a crime in order to have a new GJ look at the question indictment.  Just pointing out that there were procedural errors in how the original GJ worked is not enough.

    Parent
    "You know what will happen" (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    Not really, since that whole, little, conspiracy fairy tale is occurring entirely within your head, you're the only one who can finish it.

    Parent
    Good article on Think Prpgress (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    regarding attempt to get another prosecutor. Well worth a read.

    Under Missouri law (MO Rev Stat § 56.110) the presiding judge of the court with criminal jurisdiction -- in this case Judge McShane -- can appoint another prosecutor if the prosecuting attorney demonstrates a conflict of interest or bias. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly to include "conflicts that reveal themselves through the prosecutor's conduct in the case." In State v. Copeland, a 1996 case, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge "sensed that [the prosecutor's] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state." The judge "found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant's position."

    The recent admission that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury builds on a pattern of conduct benefiting Wilson's defense that could justify the appointment of a new prosecutor. This included: vouching for police conduct to the grand jurors, gentle questioning of Wilson himself and aggressive questioning of any witness adverse to Wilson's defense.
    link

    Will be interested in seeing how this plays out. IMO McCulloch definitely tainted the Grand Jury by allowing a witness(s) to commit perjury. Justice would be served by the court acknowledging this. Is the system too entrenched with protect our own to allow this to happen? I hope not.

    Parent

    The Effort Still Should Fail (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    ALL evidence was presented to the Grand Jury.  They were free to ask the witnesses, including Wilson, any questions they wanted.  They were free to challenge and question the prosecutors.  To throw out the Grand Jury decision would be an insult to the whole notion that representatives of the people should be allowed to make legal decisions.  And furthermore, Judge McShane would have to find that some of the strong witnesses against Wilson were credible.  Well I haven't found any.

    Parent
    Masoninblue... (none / 0) (#183)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:56:31 PM EST
    ...sounds like a screen name that might be used by Fred Leatherman.

    Parent
    New hope (none / 0) (#157)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    At this point putting the screws to McCullough is an even better outcome then getting Wilson to trial. Holding his feet to the fire will have future prosecutors begging for a special and anything that helps weaken the cop/local prosecutor bond is a very positive step. I am doubtful about justice for MB  but there is hope for a step forward for justice going forward.(yeah yeah yeah another teachable moment)

    Parent
    When your star witnesses -- (none / 0) (#151)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    Darren Wilson, Witness 40, Witness 10 -- have all been exposed as having committed perjury before the Grand Jury, and the Prosecutor expresses his intention of not prosecuting them for it, then the seating a new Grand Jury or appointing a Special Prosecutor becomes a very real possibility.

    Remember -- this was not a trial and Grand Juries are not bound by the Double Jeopardy clause.

    Parent

    Suborning perjury (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    is quite a serious crime.  Think a president was impeached for it once.


    Parent
    Peaks and valleys (none / 0) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    For all of us who believe in the rule of law. Unfortunately I go between angry and despondent. Once  America [expected,demanded,took for granted..etc] that justice would be served, now the best we can do is hope.  Of course I always hope for justice but I am a long,long way from expecting justice.That's depressing.

    Parent
    I don't really disagree (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    OTOH there has been interesting things happening recently

    Lawmaker calls for investigation of Ferguson prosecutor McCulloch

    There has been others since the original.

    Parent

    The ethics rule says (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:59:50 PM EST
    A lawyer shall not knowingly...offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false

    Strongly suspecting that someone is saying something false doesn't cut it. If the lawyer just believes it's false, the rule allows him to do so in his discretion:

    A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

    Moreover, the rules require, I am sure, that a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding like a grand jury be held to a higher standard of candor. That means disclosing exculpatory evidence even when its credibility is in doubt. If this were any other case, would anyone here fault the prosecutor for erring on the side of caution?

    Moreover, if McCullough was going to strictly exercise his discretion against doubtful witnesses, he would have refused to call nearly half the purported eyewitnesses, as at least that many repeated the false claim (made on television right after the shooting by Dorian Johnson, another liar) that Wilson shot at Brown's back (when all 12 shots are accounted for; it didn't happen). How would the public have responded to that?


    the point is he had the option (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:42:50 AM EST
    to refuse, since he believed the testimony to be false, and failed to exercise it, choosing instead to present the evidence he believed (as did two sets of agents) was false.

    Poor judgment.

    Did any other witness lie about being there to witness anything? Or were those you don't believe present, and you just doubt their version of events. This witness wasn't even there and lied and said she was.

    Parent

    How often does that happen? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:59:02 AM EST
    A witness lying about being there? Do people really not care about blatant perjury?

    Parent
    GJ not told Witness #40 falsely testified (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Palli on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    Grand Jury Transcripts Vol24  pg 9 Line10-25 pg 10 Line1-2  

    Asst. DA  Alizadeh speaking to jurors on the the last day of testimony talking about Witness 40. No mention of credibility/perjury.

    https://twitter.com/tchopstl


    Parent

    Yeppers (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:37:38 PM EST
     

    The last day before deliberations the prosecutor offers Witness 40's testimony to the jurors as valid evidence without reservations or saying anything about her credibility -- here pp9,10

    They just folded her testimony in there with all the rest.

    Parent

    Yes, he had the option (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    But he chose not to exercise it.  The rule clearly contemplates situations where a lawyer can call witnesses he doesn't believe are truthful, and still act within both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Disclosing exculpatory evidence to a grand jury is as good a reason as I've ever heard to call someone when you don't believe they're telling the truth.

    Let's not forget that ethical limitations on prosecutors exist to protect the accused. I think it's just incredible that so many people here are uninterested in the implications of calling a dozen and a half accusatory "witnesses" even though McCullough clearly did not believe what they were saying, either.

    I've said many times before that I believe the prosecutor was using the grand jury to pass the buck, since he obviously did not believe a prosecution was viable. If anything, he violated Wilson's rights by calling a parade of perjuring accusers. I don't mean to say it could be clearly shown to be unethical, because of both the factual difficulty in proving what McCullough knew or believed, and the great discretion accorded to prosecutors. But since it seems clear to me that McCullough didn't believe in he could prove Wilson guilty, and so if he were acting within the spirit of the rules, McCullough would not have brought the case to the grand jury in the first place. No one here seems to care about that for some reason.

    ---

    Also, I am not sure what distinction you are trying to draw between this witness and the others by saying she "wasn't there."  She certainly wasn't where she said she was after the shooting, but there was no irrefutable, 100% positive proof that she wasn't telling the truth about witnessing it.  Her case is not at all dissimilar from the numerous other witnesses who claimed to have been there but described things that didn't happen (in fact, her testimony was far more consistent with the physical and documentary evidence). They may have been physically closer to the scene, or present there shortly afterwards; but if they didn't see what happened (or are clearly lying about it), their accounts are just as worthless as hers -- and more dangerous and ethically dubious, because they are accusers.

    Parent

    Don't know how much clearer (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    this has to be stated. The witness wasn't there when the shooting occurred. In McCulloch's own words, "she was nowhere near the place."

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    "if he were acting within the spirit of the rules, McCullough would not have brought the case to the grand jury in the first place. No one here seems to care about that for some reason."

    Most people wanted a show trial.  We know it would have been a waste of time but those who bought into the "hands up" testimony will never agree.

    Parent

    If there were not enough evidence, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    and this case should not have been brought before the Grand Jury, then McCulloch wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money to provide himself with political cover.

    IOW, he failed to do his job and cost the taxpayers a lot of money with his decision to conduct a show Grand Jury.

    Parent

    He Had Other Options? (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    In order to justify his refusal to prosecute, McCulloch had to explain why - or else lots more riots and looting.  In order to explain why, he had to release the evidence, the most important being interviews of witnesses with law enforcement.  Could he have released all that evidence in any other way than he did?

    I think this case shows the inferiority of the US system to that used in the non English speaking world of having an Investigative Judge being in charge of the police investigation, holding hearings, deciding if the case merits indictment and compiling the dossier of evidence to be used by both sides at trial, if one is necessary.  The judge also issues a report, explaining why, if he decides not to indict.

    Parent

    Sure he had other options (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 05:43:01 PM EST
    He could have said that there was not enough evidence against Wilson to convict and that he wasn't going to bring it to trial. Per Jeralyn:

    I don't think the decision to call a witness before the grand jury should be based on who will be upset by your decision. It should be based on whether the prosecutor thinks the witness has relevant and credible information on the matter being investigated.

    The same would apply to conducting a Grand Jury. The decision to conduct a Grand Jury should not be based on who will be upset if you do not go through the motions.

    The prosecutor's office does not as SOP release all evidence in cases where they choose not to pursue charges. They give a brief statement that states that all available evidence does not support charges being filed against the police officer.

    The other option McCulloch had was to allow a Special Prosecutor to take over the investigation.

    Parent

    Does anyone honestly (none / 0) (#130)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    Think this was his and only his decision?

    Mayor, Govenor, Councilmen, AG etc....

    There was never going to be a normal decision made after the media accounts, hands up, witnesses all over CNN, multiple autopsies, outside investigations, a visit from the AG.

    Come on.   If he'd acted normally the city would have exploded.

    The end result was his only way out and it only proves that anything short of a conviction wasn't going to satisfy the mob.  

    A show trial would have been even worse because it would have meant 9 more months of outside speculation, media attention and then when that innocent verdict came in you have Rodney King trial riots all over again.

    Just a tough one for the prosecutor and in the end while it could have been handled better it was better then a simple no from the start.

    Parent

    The city did explode (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    Guess you missed it.

     It is on life support right now and having McCulloch state that he let witnesses he knew were lying testify in support of Wilson is just one more stupid thing to add more  fuel to the fire.

    Parent

    I honestly do believe that McCulloch (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    Made many of the decisions independently and used the media to pursuade others to fall in line. Just one example:

    St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch Thursday night blasted the decision by Gov. Jay Nixon to replace St. Louis County Police control of the Ferguson situation with the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

    "It's shameful what he did today, he had no legal authority to do that," McCulloch said. "To denigrate the men and women of the county police department is  shameful."

    McCulloch noted that no one was seriously injured in the effort led by County Police Chief Jon Belmar until Nixon handed control of the Ferguson over to the state agency on Thursday.

    "For Nixon to never talk to the commanders in the field and come in here and take this action is disgraceful," McCulloch said.

    "I hope I'm wrong, but I think what Nixon did may put a lot of people in danger."



    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Palli on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    You presume to speak for Ferguson, St Louis Co. and St Louis  citizens.  What inside track polling have you been doing?

    The normal decision- appropriate-decision could/should have been made by the Gov. in consultation with Pros. Atty. long before any of the circus began. The reason to recuse McCullouh from any cop killing case were known before Michael Brown was killed.


    Parent

    I'm so glad you are concerned (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    About the system.  

    Your faith May be restored.  They are trying to get the decision set aside and a new grand jury with an independent prosecutor.  I'm sure you will consider this good news considering your stated concern about justice.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    That's pretty much how I see it.  But it was a no win situation.  

    Parent
    No win for who? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    the DA got what he wanted.  And apparently so did you.

    Parent
    The DA was going to be criticized no matter what (none / 0) (#78)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    So he couldn't win.

    For selfish reasons, I would have loved to see a trial. It would have been a miscarriage of justice, just like with Zimmerman, but it would have been fun to watch.

    Parent

    I seem to be agreeing with Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    a lot in this post. Jeraln:

    If he was going to be criticized anyway, why not decide to be criticized for doing the right thing and blocking untruthful testimony, rather than perpetuating it?

    If you believe:

    "if he were acting within the spirit of the rules, McCullough would not have brought the case to the grand jury in the first place.

    If he was going to be criticized anyway, why not decide to be criticized for doing what you believe is the right thing; not to bringing the case before the Grand Jury in the first place.

     

    Parent

    He didn't have the courage to do that (none / 0) (#103)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    I'd like to think I would have done what I thought was right but I've never been in his position.

    Parent
    McBain (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Palli on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    That is what thinking is all about.  Thinking is self-training so you will do the right thing when you are in that position.

    Parent
    Last sentence, third paragraph. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    Mr. McCulloch's initial decision may have been to decline to prosecute Officer Wilson.

    Parent
    Disclosure (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 06:50:53 AM EST
    of exculpatory evidence is not mandated for GJ proceedings (read Scalia's opinion).The prosecutor would of had to disclose the existence of witness 40 before any trial but no sane/sober defense atty. would call her. In my book McCollough just confessed to purposely trying to muddy the water. It's pretty much a smoking gun for those of us believe the fix was in from day one. As for the apologists, good luck spinning this one.

    Parent
    Would you please provide a link to (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    the actual legal rule that requires a prosecutor in a Grand Jury proceeding disclose exculpatory evidence even when its credibility is in doubt.

    Or if that becomes too difficult, a link to any legal ruling that establishes the right to have any exculpatory evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

    Not interested in opinion but actual rules pertaining to Grand Jury proceedings.

    Parent

    who exactly are you directing this to? (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    "Disclosure of exculpatory evidence is *not mandated for GJ proceedings (read Scalia's opinion).The prosecutor would of had to disclose the existence of witness 40 before any trial but no sane/sober defense atty."

    *bolding mine

    if it's F1Joe, I strongly recommend you re-read what he wrote, since it's the exact opposite of your question.

    Parent

    Captain is correct (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    My comment was directed to toggle who IMO misstated what the rules required McCulloch to do.

    toggle's statement:

    Moreover, the rules require, I am sure, that a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding like a grand jury be held to a higher standard of candor. That means disclosing exculpatory evidence even when its credibility is in doubt

    I started my reply prior to Fljoe posting his comment which I believe reflects what the rules actually are. Fact vs fiction. If toggle has information that supports the rules as he stated them, I thought I would give him the opportunity to provide the legal opinion that was the basis of the information.

    Parent

    "Parent" (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    allows you to see who it is directed to.  It was for toggle.

    Parent
    I said (none / 0) (#41)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    That ex parte proceedings (like a grand jury) require a higher level of candor than adversarial proceedings where both parties are represented. I didn't say that there's a rule that specifically requires disclosure of all exculpatory evidence.

    Parent
    I am fully aware of what you said (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    The problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

    Now if you have information that overrides the SCOTUS decision, please  provide a that substantiates your statement that Grand Jury procedings require a higher level of candor or requires that any exculpatory evidence at all.

    Parent

    It is a fascinoma that suddenly (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    Scalia is a respected jurist.

    Parent
    It really doesn't matter if Scalia (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    Is a respected jurist or not. His opinion in the United States vs Williams was the majority opinion and by a 5/4 vote is now established law in the U.S.

    People can argue that they do not agree with the ruling but stating that Grand Jury procedures require "that a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding like a grand jury be held to a higher standard of candor. That means disclosing exculpatory evidence even when its credibility is in doubt. " is not accurate.

    Of course,if you have any legal rulings that override the U.S. Vs Williams ruling and substantiate toggles claim, please provide a link.

    Parent

    Scalia (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    is being quoted because his would not normally be expected t be a point of view that supports this particular argument.
    And you know it very well.  If I were you I would take a good look around you at the company you are keeping.  

    Parent
    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    I think you are getting your stereotypes confused. Scalia is criticized as a law and order judge who finds ways to uphold more intrusive policing (although this is something those of us who have actually studied his jurisprudence know isn't always true).  So Scalia describing the right to a grand jury as more limited is perfectly in line with what you (you) would expect from him.

    Moreover, as I explained in another post, the Scalia opinion quoted is addressing federal grand juries and is not (nor was it intended to be) speaking to state grand juries, which are governed by their own (state) common law, statutes, and constitutions. It has no application to Darren Wilson's prosecution under state law.

    You and the others quoting Scalia for this argument are actually going much farther than Scalia did by taking his (supposedly) more narrow view of a grand jury and trying to apply that interpretation to all the states -- all because of your outrage over this one, specific case. You would throw the law under the bus to prosecute one man. You sound like the worst stereotype of a hanging judge.

    That's irony!

    Parent

    Would you like to provide proof (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    that the ruling in the U.S. vs Williams does not apply in the State of Missouri.

    The SCOTUS blog seems to disagree with you:

    The question in United States v. Williams was whether it is prosecutorial misconduct, requiring the dismissal of an indictment, for the prosecutor to withhold from the grand jury "substantial exculpatory evidence" in his possession that might lead the grand jury to reject the indictment. The Supreme Court said no. Justice Scalia, joined by four other Justices, held that the Constitution does not require exculpatory evidence to be disclosed, even when it is directly contrary to the prosecutor's theory of guilt. That is partly because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime that a conviction is possible. The grand jury itself can say "we've heard enough," and so the Court declined to impose on the prosecutor a burden to present it with all of the evidence.

    [Special note for law nerds: The absence of a federal constitutional rule requiring disclosure does not mean that there can be no laws or policies requiring some. Those there may be, but I am not aware of them, and we would have very little idea of how they were implemented in practice given the near-total secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Also, Missouri could have a different requirement under state law, but that appears not to be true.]

    What does this mean? It means that when a prosecutor really wants an indictment, you would not expect the grand jury process to look anything like what happened in Darren Wilson's case. The prosecutor would have no obligation to put forward the conflicting eyewitness testimony, or introduce pictures of Officer Wilson's injuries....SCOTUS Blog

    The SCOTUS blog was unable to find a MO ruling that overrides the SCOTUS ruling. They seem to be of the opinion that U.S. vs Williams would apply to the Wilson Grand Jury. So once again, if you a link to a Missouri state law that overrides the SCOTUS decision, please  provide a link to substantiate your statement that Grand Jury procedings require a higher level of candor or requires that any exculpatory evidence at all.


    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    That is just a blog post. It contains no citations to authority and no serious analysis of the issue. And, as far as I can see, the author is not a regular contributor to the blog, nor is he a particularly authoritative source himself. He is just some guy posting on a blog. If you haven't noticed, the airwaves (and the blogs) are full of hack legal analysis. The reason is, unfortunately, that serious, honest, competent analysis tends to be boring. It doesn't get viewers or hits like sweeping generalizations and nasty allegations. That's why CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are full of boorish morons.

    That's not to say that this guy is a hack.  He doesn't even say what you seem to think he does--he says nothing about there needing to be a Missouri rule to "override" Williams.  Also, the Williams case is about the violation of a (federal) constitutional right to a grand jury. That particular right does NOT apply to the states. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). That means that the federal courts have no authority to impose rules on state grand juries, and that federal decisions about federal grand juries are not authority against the states.  That's because the right to a grand jury indictment descends from state constitutions and not the US constitution. The supreme court does not render opinions on the interpretation of state constitutions.

    This is all elementary stuff and the author of the post gets it. In fact, he says that the federal rule announced in Williams doesn't apply to Missouri (I said this!), then he goes on to say he's not aware of any Missouri authority holding otherwise. (But he doesn't say he even looked--very serious analysis, this!).  He just sort of assumes that a Missouri court would agree with Scalia.  That's probably true.

    But that doesn't mean what you think it means, because the issue in the Williams case was whether an indictment has to be thrown out if the prosecutor did not disclose exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. It was not a case about ethical obligations or the right way to conduct a grand jury. Rules of professional conduct and criminal procedure are not necessarily going to be the same.  Or, put another way, just because a prosecutor conducts himself unprofessionally (especially when it's a duty that is implied, inferred, discretionary, or aspirational), it doesn't mean that the case will be thrown out. And, of course, just because a prosecutor doesn't have to present exculpatory evidence, it doesn't mean he can't if he doesn't want to.

    I note that Missouri definitely does require the disclosure of exculpatory evidence "known" to the prosecutor:

    RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

    (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

    Some states, I believe, specifically except grand juries from their version of this rule. Missouri doesn't.

    So, in summary:

    1. It is just a blog post; and

    2. It doesn't disagree with anything I said.


    Parent
    Eric Citron was the author of the (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:53:15 PM EST
    article on SCOTUS. Here is his background:

    Eric Citron clerked on the Supreme Court of the United States for Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Elena Kagan. Before his time at the Supreme Court, Eric was a senior associate in the Litigation/Controversy Department and a member of the Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation and Government and Regulatory Litigation Practice Groups at WilmerHale. He has also served as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, where he drafted position papers, policy memoranda and speeches, and advised on issues related to policy, appeals, inter-agency coordination, international relations, and litigation. Immediately following law school, Mr. Citron clerked for the Honorable James Robertson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Honorable David S. Tatel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
    Education

        J.D., Yale Law School, 2007
        B.A., Harvard University, summa cum laude, 2003

    Areas Of Practice
    Supreme Court Practice
    Goldstein & Russell, P.C. specializes in representing clients at all stages before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The article stated:

    Justice Scalia, joined by four other Justices, held that the Constitution does not require exculpatory evidence to be disclosed, even when it is directly contrary to the prosecutor's theory of guilt........Also, Missouri could have a different requirement under state law, but that appears not to be true.]

    toggle: An anonymous person who comments on a blog and claims to be a lawyer.

    Parent

    Rule 3.3 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL is listed under the rules for Advocates.

    What is ADVOCATE?

    One who assists, defends, or pleads for another; one who renders legal advice and aid and pleads the cause of another before a court. A person learned In the law, and duly admitted to practice, who assists his client with advice, and pleads for him in open court

    Law Dictionary: What is ADVOCATE? definition of ADVOCATE (Black's Law Dictionary)

    Explanation of rule (d) In an ex parte proceeding

    Ex Parte Proceedings

    [15] Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.

    The prosecutors were not advocates for Michael Brown nor were they supposed to be advocates for Darren Wilson. There is no judge present during the Grand Jury proceedings. The requirements in a court setting are different from the requirements for a Grand Jury.  

    Parent

    With all due respect (2.67 / 3) (#115)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. A grand jury is a tribunal. The prosecutor is an advocate who represents the state.

    Parent
    We all know that normal Grand Jury (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:39:20 AM EST
    proceeding are not conducted as per your statement. Prosecutors do not act as the defense for subjects under investigation by the Grand Jury. They do not present all exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

    Under normal procedures the prosecutor would put forward only the first few witnesses corroborating his own theory, along with the evidence that the subject under investigation fired the shots that killed the victim. They limit the amount of information that is presented.

    The prosecutor would have no obligation to put forward the conflicting eyewitness testimony.

    Prosecutors do not present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Juries as normal procedure. Legal experts have stated that this Wilson GJ was conducted like a trial rather than like a Grand Jury only without the advisorial nature of a trial where testimony and evidence is challenged as part of the procedure.

    Prosecutors in MO would be in violation of Rule 3.3 on 99.9% of all Grand Jury proceedings if the rules you cited were applicable to Grand Jury proceedings for the very simple reason that they don't do it that way.

    Parent

    You are going around in circles (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by toggle on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:39:07 AM EST
    You wanted an example, I provided it. You wanted an explanation of why the Williams case isn't controlling. I explained. You have not refuted either in the slightest; you just keep saying "we all know" as if you knew what Missouri practice actually looks like, when you obviously do not.

    I do not practice law in Missouri, but I can describe how it works with some confidence based on one fact:  Missouri does not actually require a grand jury indictment to prosecute someone. In the great majority of cases, I am sure, prosecutors simply file charges and the question of probable cause is tried to a judge at a preliminary hearing (or, often, not at all because the defendant waives it).

    Moreover, the practice of passing along difficult or controversial decisions to grand juries, and then providing them with all the evidence without taking a position, is well established. I have in the past provided links to various statements of prosecutorial ethics that affirmatively state that the prosecutor is not obligated to recommend that a grand jury charge someone with a crime. They wrote those rules with cases like this one in mind.

    So I doubt your claim that "99.9%" of grand juries in Missouri are treated differently.

    Parent

    Your contention that a (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:40:02 AM EST
    prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury even when its credibility is in doubt is not only not standard procedure in  Grand Juries but also prohibited by the Rules of Conduct that you reference.

    St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch told radio station KTRS that he let some witnesses testify "even though their statements were not accurate."

    "I knew that no matter how I handled this, there would be criticism of it," McCulloch said. "So if I didn't put thoste witnesses on, then we'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on even though their statements were not accurate."

    He later added, "I thought it was much more important to present anybody and everybody and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."

    "[T]his lady clearly wasn't present when this occurred," McCulloch said. "She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson's actions, and right down the line with Wilson's actions. Even though I'm sure she was nowhere near the place."

    "A lawyer should not present testimony that he believes to be false," Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University, told BuzzFeed. "That is especially true in a proceeding that lacks all of the usual safeguards, such as opposing counsel and a judge."

    Former Federal Prosecutor Jonathan Shapiro discussed the possible sanctions St. Louis Country Prosecutor Bob McCulloch could be facing for putting witness 40 on the stand in the Ferguson case.

    If he knew that that witness, number forty was lying and wasn't there, he had a ethical, legal and professional duty to not put the witness on the stand. If he found out about it later, he had a separate obligation to notify the tribunal, that is go into the grand jury and say that witness lied to you.

    Parent | Reply to This

    Parent

    What is normal procedure for MO Grand Juries? (none / 0) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:17:50 AM EST
    Maybe we should let Robert McCulloch, Prosecuting Attorney, St. Louis County, give us this answer. In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch made this statement:

    Normally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses," in this case "all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony. link

    In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in an investigator or two to briefly outline the evidence and then "ask" the grand jury to indict, in this case he decided that the grand jury should hear "anybody and everybody" testify even those who clearly were not telling the truth and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony.

    Parent

    Here is the rules of conduct for MO (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:27:08 AM EST
    Missouri: RULE 4-3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

    What does Rule 4-3.3 govern?

    COMMENT

    [1] Rule 4-3.3 governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal. See Rule 4-1.0(m) for the definition of "tribunal." It also applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal's adjudicative authority, such as a deposition. For example, Rule 4-3.3(a)(3) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures if the lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition has offered evidence that is false.



    Parent
    We've been over this (none / 0) (#122)
    by toggle on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:46:08 AM EST
    The prosecutor represents the state. "Wilson v. State" -- get it?

    The rule uses the word "tribunal" because not every instance where an attorney appears is before a judge and a jury. A city council is a tribunal. A worker's compensation commission is a tribunal. Likewise for unemployment commisioners. Etc. A grand jury is a tribunal.

    RULE 4-1.0. TERMINOLOGY

    ....

    (m) "Tribunal" denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding, or a legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal decision directly affecting a party's interests in a particular matter.


    LINK

    Parent
    This statement by Eric Citron (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    definitely disagrees with your statement that that the prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury even when its credibility is in doubt. Direct quote of Mr Citron:

    The prosecutor would have no obligation to put forward the conflicting eyewitness testimony, or introduce pictures of Officer Wilson's injuries - although grand jury members could ask for them if they somehow knew they existed. Instead, the prosecutor could put forward only the first few witnesses corroborating his own theory, along with the evidence that Wilson fired ten shots from a substantial distance away.

    If Wilson had been indicted, all the exculpatory evidence would have to be shared with the defense before trial,


    Parent

    Mo (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:29:40 AM EST
    this is the same person who stated flatly that Eric Garner did not die for being choked.  Then when confronted with the ME statement twisted itself into a pretzel first trying to redefine choked to death and then questioning the meaning of the term "cause of death".  So good luck with this.  Everyone else may see you are correct but that commenter never will admit that.


    Parent
    Tipping the hat (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    To Scalia did kinda stick in the craw.


    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    true
    On the other hand if it had been Ginsberg it would have been dismissed out of hand.

    Parent
    Unless the (US) constitution is implicated... (none / 0) (#52)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    ... the SCOTUS doesn't write ethics rules for state courts or opine on state grand jury processes.  It has no authority to do so.

    The Supreme Court has never held that there is a (federal) constitutional right to a grand jury for charges brought in state courts. In fact many states don't have grand juries, or don't require prosecutors to go to them unless they choose to (including, IIRC, Missouri).

    The quotes from Scalia you see bandied about are limited to federal grand juries and have no application to this case.

    Parent

    The fact that this grand jury was (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:40:12 PM EST
    a distortion of the process and a disgrace is just about as perfectly established a fact as there is.   The fact that you and your wing men keep trying to defend it says more about you than it does the process or this case.

    Please, keep it up.

    Parent

    Your posturing would be more effective (2.00 / 2) (#70)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    If I were not an attorney and possessed of the knowledge and skills to critically examine claims made about the case.  You seem to be capable of little more than parroting talking points that support the outcome you want to see.

    Parent
    If you are an attorney (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    then surely you can provide MO statutes or case law that proves your point. Your claims would be much more effective if you used your self proclaimed knowledge and skills to provided actual proof that MO has rules that require Grand Jury procedings be held to a higher level of candor and requires disclosing exculpatory evidence even when its credibility is in doubt.

    Other attorneys familiar MO Rules of Professional Conduct and with the Supreme Court and the ruling of U.S. vs Williams disagree with you. How about some links to facts that back up your statements.  

     

    Parent

    Mccullogh (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    is an attorney.  What the hell do you think that's supposed to prove.

    Parent
    Not the law license (2.00 / 2) (#73)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    But the accompanying knowledge and skills. I know better than to be impressed with your posturing.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    in your position as an attorney do you often make use of "witnesses" who are mentally ill and never actually witnessed anything?

    Parent
    What is the name of the psychiatrist... (none / 0) (#83)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    ...who personally examined this witness and declared her to be mentally ill?

    Parent
    Do You consider bi polar disorder (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    a mental illness?

    Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness with recurring episodes of mania and depression that can last from one day to months. This mental illness causes unusual and dramatic shifts in mood, energy and the ability to think clearly.


    Dec 12, 2014 - Witness #40 was interviewed for the first time by FBI for an hour and 38 .... PAGE 98: The witness, for the first time, admits to being bipolar and ...


    Parent
    How do you know... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    ...she's not lying about being bipolar?

    Or is she only a liar when it suits whatever point you're trying to argue, but completely credible otherwise?

    Parent

    Wow you seem so pleased with (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    that.  And toggle too I guess you got a 5.  
    What do you think it's supposed to mean I wonder.  If some is willing to say under oath that they are bipolar and and hey clearly have other problems, like a history of doing similar things, that's make her someone who is suitable to testify in a grand jury?  
    I am out of this thread because I don't deal well with that sort of nonsense but thank you for that response.  

    It really was perfect.  It sums things up about as well as they could be summed.   In fact I'm going to give you another 5.

    Parent

    shot at while running away (none / 0) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:56:38 AM EST
    When confronted with autopsy results those who in their earlier interviews said they saw Brown shot in the back admitted that they were overstating what they saw, that they didn't actually see the bullet go into his back, but that they did see Wilson fire at him as his back was turned.

    And the reason they believed he had been hit in the back was they saw him flinch immediately afterwards and pull up.

    They may have backed off of the "shot in the back" claim but did not back off of the "shot at while running away" claim and that was 75% of the witnesses.

    And don't forget that Dr Baden testified that the bullet wound to the forearm came from behind as he was running away.

    And regarding the gun, his weapon holds 13 bullets  -- not 12.

    And while they recovered 12 shell casings at the scene there is no guarantee that they got them all especially when Wilson was allowed to return to the station, call his union rep, wash away forensic evidence, and bag his own gun with an extra round for good measure.

    Thus there is good reason to believe that he fired 13 shots -- the one from behind causing Brown to flinch and pull up and turn around.


    Parent

    A conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#42)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    Your argument is that Wilson somehow knew there would be an audio recording of the final ten shots (but only the final ten), so he surreptitiously put an unfired round into his gun after the fact.

    That is not only a conspiracy theory, but a highly improbable one.

    Parent

    Picking up the brass (none / 0) (#80)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    so he surreptitiously put an unfired round into his gun after the fact.

    Go ask a police officer what the term "pick up your brass" means and why they do it and what those extra rounds they carry in their pockets are for.

    It's SOP and they don't call them "gumshoes" for nothing.

    That's why police procedures call for handing over the weapon to a supervisor immediately after a police shooting -- procedures that were blatantly violated in this case.

    Parent

    Harmless Error (2.14 / 7) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    I am shocked how much hand wringing is being spent over this trivial incident.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that this witness had anything to do with the jury's decision because they were given all the information that what she said was incorrect.  The only people who have a valid complaint are the jury because their time was wasted.

    I contrast this with the use of ear witnesses that claimed they could identify the barely audible screams on the 911 cellphone recording in the Zimmerman case.  It was pretty obvious that neither layperson nor expert could do this but the prosecution, especially, tried very hard to use this evidence.  If McCulloch was unethical then Angela Corey and Bernarda de la Rionda were 10 fold more so and I haven't heard a peep about punishing them for this and other transgressions.

    Quite a bit more complicated (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    and possibly much less trivial than what you imply. Former Federal Prosecutor, Jonathon Shapiro:

    MELBER: Why would a prosecutor say that he should put people on the stand in a grand jury that he didn't think were telling the truth?

    SHAPIRO: Well, he shouldn't and no lawyer should. The rules of professional conduct prohibit it, rule 3.3 specifically says a lawyer shall not put a witness before a tribunal, including a grand jury, if the lawyer, including a prosecutor knows the person is not telling the truth. You can't do it. It's illegal. It's called suborning perjury.

    If you do it the sanctions that you face are contempt of court sanctioned by your state bar, in this case the state of Missouri, or prison. You'd be indicted for it. The question is what did this prosecutor know and when did he know it?

    If he knew that that witness, number forty was lying and wasn't there, he had a ethical, legal and professional duty to not put the witness on the stand. If he found out about it later, he had a separate obligation to notify the tribunal, that is go into the grand jury and say that witness lied to you. link




    Parent
    It All Depends What "Know" Means (2.33 / 6) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    If there were a sliver of evidence that McCulloch didn't present relevant witnesses to the GJ, then his critics would have a case.  McCulloch's intent was clearly to have the jury review all the evidence previous investigators had considered.  The law that Shapiro cites was clearly designed to present an unscrupulous advocate from presenting a fraudulent case.  There were a number of other witnesses that were told by the FBI that what they said conflicted with the physical evidence.  Maybe their lying wasn't as flagrant as Witness 40's but McCulloch could be taken to task for also presenting them to the GJ.  If he violated the letter of the law, he certainly didn't violate its intent.

    Parent
    The issue is whether McCulloch (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    let a witness he knew was lying testify before the Grand Jury.

    A former prosecutor has stated that knowingly allowing a witness to commit perjury before the Grand Jury is illegal.

    What credentials do you possess that would make you more knowledgeable about the laws in MO or the Professional Codes of Conduct than Shapiro? Are you a defense lawyer or a prosecutor, a professor of law at a leading university here in the U.S. that might make your legal opinions  more credible than Shapiro's statement. Maybe you have some case ruling that substantiates your interpretation. If so, please provide a link to some factual legal document or opinion to support why your interpretation of the law is accurate.

    If McCulloch allowed any witness that he knew was lying to testify, he should be held accountable for his actions just like any other citizen.

    Parent

    RJ (none / 0) (#74)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    There is absolutely no reason to believe that this witness had anything to do with the jury's decision because they were given all the information that what she said was incorrect.

    That's not true. When she left the GJ room she still insisted that she was there and saw everything and what she testified to was accurate.

    Some jurors were quite open about what they thought about some of the witnesses.  One even in front of everybody referred to Dr Baden as a "Prima Donna". But none of them had anything critical or derogatory to comment about Witness 40.

    And then on the day before deliberations the prosecutors presented her testimony for consideration to the jurors without the least hint of her credibility and perjury problems.

    It's here pp9,10

    McCulloch even cited her in his summary statement. It's only now that he and others are trying to distance themselves from her and mitigate her affect on the jury.

    Parent

    This bears repeating (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    McCulloch even cited her in his summary statement. It's only now that he and others are trying to distance themselves from her and mitigate her affect on the jury.

    Not only did he mention it, it is the ONLY witness testimony he mentioned.  

    Parent

    uh, what? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    Here is McCullough's statement.

    Are you and Uncle Chip are talking about some other McCullough summary statement?

    Parent

    talking about McCullough's statement when he announced that the GJ's decision, then every word of what you and Uncle Chip wrote is completely false.


    Parent
    the charge (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:46:00 PM EST
    Witnesses 40's and Witness 10's statements were used to compose this part of Mc's statement here:

    several witnesses stated that Mr. Brown did not raise his hands at all ... Other witnesses stated Mr. Brown stopped for a very brief period and move towards Officer Wilson again. One describes his movement as a "full charge.

    According to some witnesses, Officer Wilson stopped firing when Mr. Brown stopped moving towards him, and resumed firing when Mr. Brown started moving towards him again. These witnesses did not make any statements to the media.

    The description of how Mr. Brown hands ... is not consistent among the witnesses.... Still others describe his hands is being in a running position or in fists.

    There are also various witness statements regarding Mr. Brown's movements after he stopped and turned back towards Officer Wilson....
    Most said the shots were fired as he moved towards Wilson. Mr. Brown's movements were described as "walking," "moving fast," "stumbling" or "full charge."

    Three people described it as a "charge":

    1 Wilson who prosecutors said lied in the Gj room [Care Main Bullet found p49],

    2 Witness 40 who McCulloch now admits to have lied  and wasn't there at all, and

    3 Witness 10 who was way back at Clarion Drive and Canfield Drive -- nowhere near enough to the scene to have seen anything.

    Am I missing anybody else???

    Parent

    I'm not sure if you are really this dumb (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:49:37 PM EST
    or you think that we're so dumb that you can repeatedly falsify facts like you do here again, and think that no one will call you on it.

    McCullough said specifically "full charge" twice in his statement:

    One describes his movement as a "full charge."

    Mr. Brown's movements were described as "walking," "moving fast," "stumbling" or "full charge."

    The word "full" simply not exist anywhere in W40's testimony, nor in her written "notes."

    Witness 10 said "full charge."

    Period. End of story.

    Your comment that McCullough cited W40 in his statement, and CaptHowdy's comment which, inexplicably, literally doubled-down on your false statement, are both completely, 100% wrong.

    Parent

    SUO's charge (none / 0) (#116)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:58:25 PM EST
    Witness 10 said "full charge."

    And of course lying Witness 40 described it here pp39-41:

    "bent down in the football position ... had his fist made and he began to charge ... more of a head type first thing ... just looked like he was on something ... he didn't flinch ... he didn't wiggle ... he didn't stop ... he just kept going ... is he ever going to F, you know, quit ... I said is he ever going to fucking stop ... he wouldn't stop ... he was still going after him, he was still charging him, he was bent down more ..."

    So SUO just how would you characterize  Witness 40's prefabricated characterization of her "charge"??? Was it a light charge?? a small charge?? a partial charge?? a half charge?? an overcharge?? a charge of the light brigade?? or a full charge???

    Witness 10 may have called it, but Witness 40 described it, and McCulloch used it.

    Parent

    McCulloch's Statement (none / 0) (#99)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    The physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury, combined with the witness statements, supported and substantiated by that physical evidence, tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened....

    That's good -- let's see how well you do with that physical scientific evidence called The Timeline:

    At approximately 12:02 p.m., Wilson radioed he had to individuals on Canfield and needed assistance. Officer Wilson backed his vehicle at an angle blocking their path

    No -- Mc has that backwards. It was shortly after 12:01 that he backed up and then at 12:02 that he made that call for assistance which was just 7 seconds before he opened up on Brown to finish what he started.

    Those Timelines will get you every time.

    Parent

    You linked, as proof... (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    to your own personal "timeline?"

    And refer to it as "physical scientific evidence?"

    And capitalize it as "The Timeline?"

    omg, that is funny beyond words.

    Parent

    Show Me (none / 0) (#113)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:08:18 PM EST
    where it is incorrect anywhere.

    It is sourced from St Louis Public Radio, the Post Dispatch, Ferguson Police Department, and the FBI  and links are provided so the numbers can be checked.

    Are you saying that minutes and seconds are not science??? that they have no evidentiary value???

    OMG back to you!!!

    Parent

    Then if it is sourced (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 08:42:52 AM EST
    to the St Louis Public Radio..

    Then link to it.

    Parent

    I did (none / 0) (#133)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:21:35 AM EST
    It's in the link in the Timeline titled "Shooting Event Opened".

    Do I have to do everything for you??? A first grader could find it.

    Parent

    Trying to pry open a closed mind (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    To the facts of a case makes oyster shucking look easy by comparison.

    Parent
    Yes, when you make a claim (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    then you should provide the source.

    It isn't my job to search for your "proof."

    Parent

    Jimmmmmmeeeee (none / 0) (#167)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    then you should provide the source.

    I have atleast a half dozen times here.

    I'll remember that the next time you make a claim and require you to turn your posts into link sausages.

    It isn't my job to search for your "proof."

    Maybe you should check your job description or turn in your resignation.

    We're not here to hand feed you and clutter up the screen with links to the obvious.


    Parent

    No Chip (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    Finding your so called proof is no one's job but yours.

    You know, just like the state has to provide the proof of its claims in court, in our society it is expected that any claim must be supported by the person making the claim.

    It's a societal thing.

    Parent

    Good grief (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    At approximately 12:02 p.m., Wilson radioed

    No -- Mc has that backwards. It was shortly after 12:01

    What you are doing is raising false flags. That is a typical tactic of people convinced of a conspiracy or someone with a vested interest in an event that they disagree with.

    Simply.

    Do you understand the meaning of APPROXIMATELY?

    Enough already. Justice has been done.

    Parent

    Baloney -- (none / 0) (#168)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    Mc knew exactly what he was doing by stating that the call for assistance came before Wilson backed up to confront the two.

    He wanted to make it look like he followed procedure but he didn't.

    Instead he makes the call for assistance at 12:02  after the shots were fired in the Tahoe. And then in the call forgets mention "shots fired, or officer assaulted, or robbery suspects spotted, or injuries ambulance requested."

    And then 7 seconds after that 12:02 call he begins pumping the first of 10 bullets into Brown.

    If Mc got it wrong, then what are the odds that the jury members got it wrong as well.

    Parent

    Chip, he said "approximately" (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    I trust you know what that means.

    I mean "odds are?"

    Look. When a man's freedom is a stake in our CJ system "odds are" is meaningless.

    All you do is raise all these false flags trying to make yourself look knowledgeable and important.

    It isn't working.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#175)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 05:05:02 PM EST
    When you are describing an event that from start to finish took only 74 seconds, then being 60 seconds off on a critical detail while calling it "approximately" just doesn't cut it.

    Parent
    He wasn't describing an event, (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    He was describing the whole GJ experience.

    Give it up....

    BTW - Do you have any copes of the "fake" moon landing?

    lol

    Parent

    You do admit (none / 0) (#179)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    You do admit that Mc had it backwards, don't you???

    You do admit that Wilson backed up his truck to confront the two before his 12:02 call to dispatch, don't you???

    Parent

    I don't admit anything (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:31:15 PM EST
    nor do I claim anything except the DA was describing an event in loose terms and that Johnson's claim that Wilson choked Brown is proven false by the ME's testimony........

    And that you are so focused on an event that doesn't effect you that if you were in my circle of friends I would be very concerned about you.

    Parent

    it also doesn't affect you (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    No man is an island (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 06:19:17 AM EST

    No man is an island entire of itself;
    every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
    if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
    is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
    well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
    own were; any man's death diminishes me,
    because I am involved in mankind.

    And therefore never send to know for whom
    the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

    Olde English Version
    No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man
    is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;
    if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe
    is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
    well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
    owne were; any mans death diminishes me,
    because I am involved in Mankinde;
    And therefore never send to know for whom
    the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

    MEDITATION XVII
    Devotions upon Emergent Occasions
    John Donne



    Parent
    loose terms (none / 0) (#182)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    Thank You -- you answered my question -- indicting yourself in the process.

    Parent
    That claim is false and easily refuted (none / 0) (#82)
    by toggle on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    McCullough quoted witness 10, who said Brown made a "full charge" toward Wilson.

    One [witness] described his [Brown's] movement toward Officer Wilson as a "full charge."

    Youtube link to press conference at the moment of the quote.

    Witness 10 said:

    Immediately after he [Brown] did his body gesture, he comes for force, full charge at the officer.

    Line 16-17: Witness 10's Testimony

    Parent

    toggle (none / 0) (#98)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    McCullough quoted witness 10, who said Brown made a "full charge" toward Wilson.

    You mean this Witness 10 -- the witness with special ability to see through trees and cars and things more than a football field and a half away.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, Please Give CH Some Limits (2.00 / 4) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 10:59:03 AM EST
    He doesn't deserve more than 2 comments per thread. I think he is the most prolific poster on your blog and the majority of it is ad hominems.

    Perhaps when you (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    limit yourself to no more than two comments per thread, Howdy might be tempted to do so, as well.
    After all, you have ten comments on this thread so far.
    Is that too much?  Maybe I think it is, even if you do not.
    I know that Howdy tends to comment a lot, but maybe before you criticize the mote in someone else's eye, you might take a look at the beam in your own eye.
    Just sayin'.


    Parent
    Captain Howdy (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    does need to watch his comments. I just deleted a few for name-calling and personal insults.

    For everyone, please do not comment on every comment, especially with a one line drive by insult. If you have something substantive to say in response to a comment, by all means do so. But it is not necessary to reply to each one just to indicate your disagreement. And insulting other commenters is not allowed period. I don't care what point of view you take, that applies to everyone.

    Parent

    McCulloch Interview (none / 0) (#3)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:25:03 AM EST
    McCulloch: But, in the situation again, in the manner in which we did it, we're not going to file perjury charges against anyone.

    Right, because alongside Witness 40 he would also be forced to file charges against Witness 10, and Darren Wilson himself who even the report itself acknowledged lied to the Grand Jury [Bullet found p49 here].

    While ignoring Wilson's prefabrications and questions surrounding Witness 10, McCulloch specifically named Dorian Johnson as the biggest liar in the room and implied that all the other liars were anti-Wilson.

    For 3 months Wilson was praised publicly for his voluntary appearance before the Grand Jury -- but he lied there and McCulloch knew it. Wilson told one story to investigators and another one entirely to the Grand Jury.

    It's one thing to appear voluntarily before the Grand Jury -- but it's something else entirely to then commit perjury there and walk away from it with the jury members knowing it.

    And then there is McCulloch's Ferguson Statement -- after that how do you charge anyone with perjury.

    Christmas came early for you, Uncle Chip (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:34:54 AM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#7)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:58:50 AM EST
    Let me go check my other stocking --

    Parent
    Witness 10 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 11:42:23 AM EST

    What makes you think Witness 10 lied or was as least mistaken?

    Parent
    What??? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    Her location -- to start with:

    She claims to have seen and heard with precision things that only someone close to the investigation could have known at the time of her interview, and she allegedly saw and heard these things from 480 feet away, around a curve, through trees, through  Wilson's truck, through other vehicles on the street at the time.

    Looking from the body back in the direction she would have been watching is here @ #10,14,17,19,20,21 Note the big trees right and left of the street.

    Her description of her location puts her at about the corner of Clarion Dr and Canfield Dr -- over a tenth of a mile from where Brown's body fell.

    Googlemap it and you will see what I mean -- and no one on the prosecution team picked up on this?

    Her story is as believable as Witness 40's and yet she was McCulloch's star witness.

    Parent

    It's obvious McCulloch did a lot of things (none / 0) (#5)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:44:08 AM EST
    with this case he normally wouldn't have done.  There are two questions...

    1.  Did his unusual handling of the case prevent the GJ from voting to indict?

    2.  Is he fit to be the DA?


    Witnesses lie? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    Who didn't know??

    We know, for example, that Johnson lied when he claimed Wilson choked Brown. The forensic proved that didn't happen per the ME.

    Did he lie on purpose or because he thought he saw that? I don't know and I don't care.

    The judicial system has worked. The GJ heard over 70 hours of testimony and failed to indict.

    Now, because it is politically unpopular within a group of people. It is time to let this go.  

    It appears that Jeralyn's post (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    is questioning McCulloch's judgement. Evidently Jeralyn thinks this is a valid point that needs further exploration or she would not have spent time writing this post.

    I agree with Jeralyn on the criteria of what testimony should be presented to the grand jury.

    It should be based on whether the prosecutor thinks the witness has relevant and credible information on the matter being investigated.


    Parent
    Then you agtree (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    that Johnson shouldn't have been called?

    Okay.

    Parent

    I do not agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    I tend to agree with Jeralyn's statement above.

    Did any other witness lie about being there to witness anything? Or were those you don't believe present, and you just doubt their version of events. This witness wasn't even there and lied and said she was.

    You just doubt his version of events.

    Parent

    I don't doubt anyone's versions (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    I say let'em all talk and let the process work.

    But when someone, like Johnson, is clearly tripped up by forensic evidence I will point that out.

    Parent

    This also (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    could help them get a new grand jury empaneled.

    Parent
    How about an investigation of the Zimmerman (none / 0) (#68)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    trial first? That was handled far worse than this case.

    Parent
    Just so I understand the basis of your question. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    It seems that your position is:

    If deception in a sham trial, or, a rigged grand jury process is used in one place, and/or, at one time, and, is successful in obtaining the results the deceivers sought to achieve, then, by virtue of the precedence this corrupt behavior creates, indemnity from prosecution is, therefore, established for all criminal acts performed by police departments and/or prosecutors, in all places, and, at all times.

    That about right?

    Parent

    I have no idea what you just said (none / 0) (#174)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    You wrote one massive sentence with lots of commas and "and/ors". I got lost.

    My point was the Zimmerman investigation and trial was handled much worse than Wilson's.  If people are upset over what McCulloch did, they should be twice as upset at what Angela Corey and others did in Florida.

    It appears people in here only want politically correct investigations.

    Parent

    Just FYI (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 05:10:11 PM EST
    Jeralyn normally frowns on going off topic of Ferguson to Zimmerman. She is busy so she might not see your comment but you might want to stay on topic. This is more a bit of friendly advise-kinda like how to link but of course you are free to do as you please.


    Parent
    apologies for my past tizzy (none / 0) (#190)
    by Palli on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:28:18 PM EST
    Same-sex marriage will (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:40:26 PM EST
    begin in Florida January 6, 2015.  Yesterday, Friday December 19,  the  US Supreme Court denied Florida AG Pam Bondi's request to extend a stay.

    On August 21, 2014, US District Judge Hinkle ruled against the Florida ban on same sex marriage, but granted a stay until January 5, 2015 so as to give Bondi time to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court at Atlanta (FL, GA, AL).  While the appeal itself has not been heard, on Dec 5, a panel of the eleventh circuit denied Bondi's request to extend the stay.  Bondi then turned to SC Justice Clarence Thomas who oversees the eleventh circuit. Justice Thomas referred the application for stay to the full Court. On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued a two-sentence denial of a stay (7-2),  noting that Scalia and Thomas would have granted a stay.

    There continues to be an issue with Florida clerks being able to issue marriage licenses outside of the north Florida county directly involved in Judge Hinkle's decision.  However, many clerks are gearing up with Monroe County (Florida Keys) Clerk Amy Heavilin, who hopes to be the first Florida clerk to issue licenses.   If the Eleventh Circuit rules in favor of same sex marriage (beyond the ruling on stay in Florida), that ruling will also  be applicable to GA and AL as seen in other Circuit Court rulings (except for the Sixth Circuit Court).

    Regrets. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    This post was intended for the Open Thread.  

    Parent
    ok, please repost there so I can (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    delete it (along with the name calling comments.)

    Parent
    If McCullough honestly believed... (none / 0) (#88)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    ...that they couldn't get a conviction if they charged Wilson and tried him, what should he have done?

    He should have (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    ...charged Wilson anyway.  The dead individual deserved to have the incompetent and shoddy "investigation" exposed for the cover-up that it was.

    Wilson's weapon was not dusted for fingerprints to see whether Brown had touched it.  Wilson maintained possession of it rather than being relieved of it as evidence.

    No photographs of the body or the scene, because the camera battery was dead.

    Wilson wandered around the scene until leaving of his own volition for the station.

    Please.

    Parent

    What good would a criminal trial do? (none / 0) (#104)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 08:06:43 PM EST
    There would be no chance of a conviction. It would be worse than Zimmerman.

    If there really is evidence of guilt, then let's have a civil trial where the burden of proof is much lower.  I don't see the Brown family filing one against Wilson.... even the lower standard will be too hard to reach.

    Parent

    How would you suggest (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    ...forcing the police to answer questions under oath about their shoddy work?  A trial in which they would be called as witnesses would be a means of doing that.

    I spend a lot of time being the only white guy in a fairly large crowd, and I spend it in places that make a lot of white people nervous.  One of my friends (did I mention Black?) got his car riddled and was wounded by a deputy, who claimed self defense, but put six rounds through the driver's door my friend was cowering behind.

    The charge was driving on a suspended license.

    Having close experience with this sort of police work, I have no doubt in my mind that Mike Brown was murdered.  Unfortunately, any chance of someone speaking for the victim has evaporated.  The only story we have is one presented by Wilson's advocate McCulloch, who openly admits using perjured testimony.  I would like to see a few of these witnesses cross-examined by a skeptic.  I would like to see the evidence gathered at the scene examined in a public forum.

    We know there were people lying, without a trial how would we cross-examine them to find out what the exact lies were?

    Parent

    Here's the problem with all that (none / 0) (#118)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:19:37 AM EST
    Even if we got to see a criminal trial, it wouldn't satisfy you.... "I have no doubt in my mind that Mike Brown was murdered"

    A trial wouldn't give closure to anyone who's convinced of guilt.  We saw this in the Zimmerman case. People don't care about facts, they want their side to win.

    Maybe there will be a civil trial but if one isn't brought that should tell you there wasn't much of a case to begin with.

    Parent

    You know what they call a prosecutor... (none / 0) (#123)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 02:38:12 AM EST
    ...who honestly believes he or she cannot get a conviction and that there is insufficient evidence to file charges and go to trial, but who does so anyway?

    Unethical.

    Parent

    What do they call this kind of (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    prosecutor:

    When discredited Missouri prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch recently defended his calculated manipulation of a grand jury which led jurors to free the policeman who fatally shot Michael Brown last summer, McCulloch declared piously that eyewitness accounts must "always match physical evidence."

    McCulloch, however, did not apply that "always match" standard in the case of Antonio Beaver, a St. Louis man wrongfully convicted by in 1997 of a violent carjacking case tried by McCulloch.

    That carjacking victim had told police her attacker was younger, shorter and weighed less than Beaver. McCulloch's office secured a first-degree robbery conviction and 18-year sentence for Beaver despite those and other salient facts pointing to Beaver's innocence. Fingerprints from the carjacked vehicle did not match Beaver's. Further, Beaver had a full mustache unlike the assailant, whom that victim described as having had no facial hair. The victim also said her assailant had a cut on his arm from their struggle, yet Beaver had no such arm injury when he arrested one week after that carjacking.

    McCulloch's office initially fought against Beaver's request to test the DNA evidence that later freed Beaver from prison in 2007, according to an account by the Innocence Project, the respected organization that won Beaver's release. That Innocence Project account of Beaver's 2007 release stated he was then at that point the sixth man in St. Louis County to be exonerated by DNA for a conviction based largely on eyewitness misidentification. Five of those six exonerations occurred between 2002 and 2007 that Innocence Project account noted.

    Those wrongful convictions cited by the Innocence Project (plus other wrongful convictions in St. Louis County) occurred during the 28-year tenure of Robert P. McCulloch as head of that county prosecutors office. In all those wrongful convictions, prosecutors working under McCulloch either sanctioned misconduct by authorities or fought against appeals where inmates challenged flawed evidence used in their respective convictions. Beaver spent ten years in prison. McCulloch became head prosecutor for St. Louis in 1991, six years before the wrongful conviction of Beaver.

    [...]

    In 2001 McCulloch, a Democrat who hails from a family of police officers, including a cop father who was killed by a black sniper while responding to a call, drew criticism when a grand jury controlled by his prosecutors cleared two officers who had killed a pair of unarmed men in a parking lot. A news reporter, after reviewing grand jury transcripts supplied by McCulloch, revealed that McCulloch lied when he publicly declared that all police eyewitnesses confirmed the shooting account of those two officers. Only 3 of 13 officers had backed that account, contrary to McCulloch's claim. McCulloch, in the Brown murder case, bashed neighborhood eyewitnesses against Wilson whom he portrayed as not believable.

    Would you call this person "ethical?"  Could you, really?

    I see all this respect for a prosecutor doing all he can in the case of someone against whom he doesn't feel there is enough evidence or probable cause for an indictment or a trial, but does that seem to be McCulloch's pattern?  You know, of an officer of the court so devoted to truth and justice that he ends up advocating for suspects and doing all he can to prevent their cases from going to trial?

    I don't.  I see a prosecutor devoted to getting convictions, even when the evidence doesn't support them, who has been shown to lie in order to get those convictions, who fights against the exoneration of individuals convicted on his watch.

    "Unethical?"  Absolutely. Not for the reasons you suggest, but based on a documented history of manipulating grand juries and the system in ways that sent too many people to prison who didn't belong there.

    Parent

    So it's wrong for them to be unethical... (2.00 / 1) (#186)
    by unitron on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    ...unless it's in a way that helps bring about what you want?

    Parent
    Wooosh.... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    and there goes the point - right over your head.

    Here's the point: you want to ascribe McCulloch's decision in the Wilson case to his high ethical standards.  I don't think, based on his history, that he has high ethical standards.  I see someone who manipulates the system and the process to get the outcome he wants.

    Parent

    Anne, also (none / 0) (#191)
    by Palli on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:36:43 PM EST
    McCullouh's brother is one of DW's attorneys.

    (There is a lot more to this orchestrated GJ & "Investigation" than is imagined.)

    Parent

    Palli (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 06:22:58 AM EST
    McCullouh's brother is one of DW's attorneys.

    That explains how team Wilson had access to crime scene data that no one else had and that they were able to pass along to the likes of Witness 10.

    McCulloch said in his interview that he micromanaged the process from a safe distance with updates provided to him multiple times of the day.

    The most disgusting part of the GJ process was the weekly release of things favorable to Wilson from "sources close to the investigation".

    Not one of those sources ever told us that Wilson was the same height as Brown at 6'4" and all we heard was about all those black witnesses who backed Wilson's story -- a story that incidentally the GJ report said was perjury.

    BTW in his police interview Wilson claims to have racked a bullet stuck in in the chamber of his gun in the front seat.

     No such bullet however was ever found and if it had been it would have been round #14 in his weapon.

     Maybe that was the one that he picked up and dropped in the bag with his weapon back at the station -- SOP for Ferguson PD I guess.

    Parent

    Deliberately presenting false information (none / 0) (#194)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    is commonly known as a lie.

    You have posted this lie about Wilson's and Brown's height/weight numerous times, and have been shown numerous times what the actual truth is, yet you keep posting your lies about it.

    ftr:

    Wilson 6'4" 210
    Brown 6'5" 289

    You have lied repeatedly about this, and have also made so many other "misrepresentations of fact" that nothing you say can be accepted as true.

    wtf is wrong with you?

    Seriously.

    Parent

    Several reports (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    show Brown's height at 6' 4" tall. The official autopsy report entered into evidence before the Grand Jury shows Brown height to be 77 inches (6' 4.4") link

    There appears to be a basis for the claim that Michael Brown was 6'4" tall.

    Parent

    77" = 6' 4.999999" (6' 5") (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    not 6' 4.4"

    Parent
    ...as Uncle Chip knows and has known (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    for weeks now.

    Parent
    I did make a mistake when I (none / 0) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    typed 77 inches equaled 6.4,4. When you divide 77 by 12 you actually get 6.4166666667 which rounds to 6.4. You might want to try one of the online conversion sites that convert inches to feet If you want to check the accuracy of that calculation.

    In order to get to  6.4999999, according to an online conversion program you would have to enter 77.999988 to arrive at your number.

    The autopsy report clearly states 77 inches and not 77.999999.

    Parent

    MO Blue, really. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    77 INCHES divided by 12 INCHES = 6.4 FEET.

    6.4 FEET = 6.0 FEET + 0.4 FEET.

    0.4 FEET = 4.999999 INCHES.

    Thus, 6.0 FEET + 0.4 FEET = 6 FEET + 4.999999 INCHES

    77" = 6' 4.999999"

    Parent

    Hopefully to keep the confusion at bay (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    Your online conversion gives you FEET only, not FEET + INCHES.

    77 INCHES divided by 12 INCHES = 6.4166666 FEET.

    6.4166666 FEET = 6 FEET + .4166666 FEET.

    .4166666 FEET converted = 4.999999 INCHES.

    Thus, 6 FEET + .4166666 FEET = 6 FEET + 4.999999 INCHES

    Thus, 77" = 6' 4.999999"

    Thus, 6'5"

    Heck, if you convert your .4166666667 FEET to INCHES you get 5.0000002 INCHES.

    Parent

    I can't believe the lengths you've (none / 0) (#210)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 09:40:52 PM EST
    both gone to when it's really very simple:

    72 inches = 6 feet

    77 inches minus 72 inches = 5 inches.

    77 inches = 6 feet, 5 inches.

    Maybe you learned math under the Common Core method?

    Parent

    I truly hate this (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    You are right in your calculations. I misread the conversion calculator.

    Parent
    Ha! No worries. (none / 0) (#204)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    wtf is wrong with you??? (none / 0) (#203)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    wtf is wrong with you?

    Brown's DL listed him as 6'4" in height and that is the number that was used for 3 months by all media describing him -- ignoring the fact of course that Wilson was also 6'4" in height.

    Height and length are two separate things.

    On the autopsy table Brown measured at ~6'5" -- but at that point that's not his height anymore but his length.

    I don't share your morbid preoccupation with death -- that's why I, like all the media not having the autopsy results, listed his 6'4" height in life as opposed to his 6'5" length in death.

    Are you that stupid or do you just act that way???

    Somehow you seem shorter to me now -- as if that's even possible.

    Parent

    "magical growing bones after death" syndrome, his length after death is not bigger than his height before it.

    Due to dehydration of the body after death there could be some very slight LOSS of height/length after death, but that is negligible (and would make him taller when alive than after death, not shorter as you seem to be claiming).

    He was 77"/6'5" by direct measurement by a medical doctor.

    Wilson 6'4" 210
    Brown 6'5" 289

    I'm shocked to hear that the height the teenaged Brown jotted down on a driver's license application years previously does not prove to be exact...

    Parent

    6'4" (none / 0) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    I'm shocked to hear that the height the teenaged Brown jotted down on a driver's license application years previously does not prove to be exact...
    Perhaps you should check Wilson's self-stated height and weight as well.

    He spent a month with Jenny Craig before he appeared before the Grand Jury with that 210lb number.

    Parent

    Here is a Live Map of (none / 0) (#144)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    Canfield Dr in Ferguson

    Make sure to click "Satellite" for best view:

    Could Witness 10 have seen any part of this shooting from a driveway all the way back there near Clarion Drive???

    Mashable (none / 0) (#189)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:18:26 PM EST
    Breakdown of witness statements

    1 Was Brown leaning in at the truck -- Yes 57%
    2 Did Brown punch at the truck -- Yes 14%
    3 Was Brown running away when Wilson shot -- Yes 75%
    4 Did Brown charge Wilson -- Yes 14%
    5 Were Brown's hands up   -- No 21%

    Add to this breakdown the inescapable 7 second Glide audio recording of the shots from 12:02:07-12:02:14 and the footage of the crime scene and this is what it looks like:

    Wilson at the truck finishes call for assistance at 12:02:00.

    Wilson then runs 140 feet down the road from the truck where at 12:02:07 he begins firing at Brown who is  who is 35 feet ahead of him at Marker 19.  

    Wilson fires 6 shots over 2.5 seconds hitting Brown with his back turned in the thumb, forearm, and  bicep causing him to stop abruptly and bleed on the ground at Marker 20.

    During the 2.5 second pause in the shooting Brown turns around, takes a step back toward Wilson which puts him back at Marker 19 where bleeding continues and marks the ground.

    At Marker 19 is where Wilson begins delivering the final 4 shots over the last 2 seconds of the audio. It's now 12:02:14.

    From Marker 19 to where Brown fell is ~20 feet. He may have stayed on his feet stumbling forward for a few additional seconds after those last 4 shots.

    Backup unit arrives at 12:02:22 -- 8 seconds later.

     

    competent analysis shows is that Brown ran to the corner of Copper Creek Ct. where he stopped and turned around. He then came at Wilson and Wilson fired multiple times. Brown then stopped and Wilson stopped shooting. Then Brown came at Wilson again and Wilson started shooting again, this time fatally.

    And, again, you, accidentally I'm sure, "misrepresent" the Glide audio facts.

    Funny that you should do that because only a couple days ago you were "reminded" of the truth.

    You must have forgot already...

    1. The Glide audio was exactly 6.572 seconds from first shot to last shot.

    2. The first volley was 1.873 seconds.

    3. The pause was 3.025 seconds.

    4. The second volley was 1.674 seconds.

    Hey, don't take my word for it, go to the expert analysis.
    ShotSpotter
    The Intelligence which Scientific Analysis Can Derive from Gunshot Audio
    Findings

    [...]

    2. The recording gives the precise time sequencing of the shots fired, which we present below. There is a total elapsed time of 6.5 seconds over the 10 shots. Two volleys, the first of 6 shots and second of 4, are separated by approximately 3 seconds.



    Parent
    Okay 6.572 (none / 0) (#206)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    Brown ran to the corner of Copper Creek Ct. where he stopped and turned around.

    That's according to witnesses who were 150 feet back up the road from whose perspective it may have appeared that way.

    But according to physical evidenceMarkers 19/20 and the Glide audio and the layout of the crime scene, he couldn't have made it that far.

    How far do you think Wilson could run from 12:02:00 to 12:02:07 where and when he started shooting at Brown as is recorded on the Glide audio.

    140 feet??? max 150 feet???

    And remember Shotspotter said that all 10 shots were within a 3 foot radius -- so he didn't go forward or backward more than 6 feet after the first shot.

    And don't forget the locations of those shell casings.

    And no physical evidence of blood or anything putting anybody beyond Markers 19/20.

    And where does he get the additional time to go  that extra 30 feet to the intersection and then back again.

    His 7 seconds ran out when Brown hit Markers 19/20.

    Remember all those witnesses who said that they were about 30 feet away from each other at turnaround:

    Wilson at ~145 feet while Brown at 175 feet at turnaround is right on the money.

    For it to have been any further like Wilson @175 with Brown @205 there had to have been more than 7 seconds or both would have to have been running at  Usain Bolt speed.

    As always the Timeline will trip you up everytime especially when combined with the other physical evidence.

    Parent

    Yup, the actual timeline, (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    the physical evidence, and the eye-witnesses, including the one who was actually standing at Copper Creek and who testified:
    and he turned around, and he turned around right on Coppercreek directly in front of where I was able to see in eyes View.
    shows what I wrote, and not at all what you wrote.

    Parent
    You can thank (none / 0) (#209)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    McCulloch for Witness 40 and Witness 10 --

    If not for them you wouldn't have anything to write.

    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#211)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:01:45 PM EST
    Dorian Johnson, witness 14, witness 17, witness 57, witness from vol 16, the detectives, the physical evidence, the Glide audio, what actually happened, etc., etc.

    And you have...well...let's see...Uncle Chip.

    btw, Bob McCulloch's brother, Joe, is not his lawyer; Neil J. Bruntrager of Bruntrager & Billings, PC, is.

    Bob's brother Joe has his own law firm, Tod Ryan & Mcculloch, LLC, and is not a part of Bruntrager & Billings.

    Thought you'd like to know...


    Parent

    Thanks Anne, I agree. (none / 0) (#212)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    Your explanation is much simpler and better.

    The Readers Digest Version of (none / 0) (#213)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:29:28 PM EST