Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
45. In response,
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 06:25 PM
Nov 2014
Why the absolute refusal to follow appropriate protocols? Why hiding or not following Sunshine State Law requirements?


What "appropriate protocols" were not followed?

A prosecutor does not need to present a case to a grand jury or seek an indictment in any potential criminal matter, no are they required to even request the grand jury issue an indictment. This is the essence of prosecutorial discretion.

A grand jury is a confidential proceeding. In any event, the transcripts have been released for public review.

Why didn't the Prosecutor, with obvious conflict of interest due to his own personal family life, not recuse himself?


McCulloch was not required to recuse himself because the circumstances of his father's death do not rise to the level of an actual, legal conflict of interest. If it did, multiple parties would have sought his recusal in court. McCulloch's personal circumstances may have created an appearance of a conflict of interest, but withdrawal would be entirely discretionary.

Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen? Why didn't the Governor appoint a Special Prosecutor? What was he afraid might happen?


The governor did not appoint a special prosecutor because he may only do so if the local district attorney voluntarily withdraws, or if there is a legally-recognized conflict of interest. Since neither of these circumstances existed, all the governor could do is request that the prosecutor withdraw.

Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this? Why aren't the Republicans screaming bloody murder about this?


How is this relevant to the actions of the authorities in MO. In any event, I assume that much of their constituency supports Wilson, or more generally the police.

What went down at the "corrupt" police department (Jennings) that Wilson formerly worked at? How much did he know? When did he know it? What went down at the "corrupt" police department (Jennings) that Wilson formerly worked at? How much did he know? When did he know it?


Unless Wilson was proven to have engaged in specific instances of police brutality or other malfeasance similar in nature to the Brown shooting, it is not only irrelevant, but would never be admitted at trial.

Anonymous has reported ties between Ferguson, Wilson, and the KKK. Is Wilson a member of the KKK "Ghoul Squad"? Who else does he know who is a member of it? What level of corruption lurks at Ferguson? Are they really "incompetent" or are they covering things up? Anonymous has reported ties between Ferguson, Wilson, and the KKK. Is Wilson a member of the KKK "Ghoul Squad"? Who else does he know who is a member of it? What level of corruption lurks at Ferguson? Are they really "incompetent" or are they covering things up?


Everything you wrote is unsubstantiated rumor, at best. If anonymous has actual evidence of Wilson belonging to the KKK or engaging in acts of racial animus, they should present it to the DOJ. Vague claims of a cover-up or KKK involvement, without actual underlying facts, is foolish and detracts from any real incriminating evidence.

And why did CNN report the story Wilson testified to that was published on Facebook was "fake"? Who Punked them?


CNN's incompetence or bias has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, and cannot be used to support or oppose legal action against Wilson.

Who is hiding what? I think Michael Brown's death is probably the tip of the iceberg, and I want to know what the Justice Department is doing to clean this up, preferably before more crimes are committed against the citizens of St Louis.

What are they trying to hide?


You can believe anything you want, however the authorities, including the Dept. of Justice, can only operate on actual evidence.

Currently, the DOJ is investigating Wilson individually for federal criminal civil rights violations in connection with the Brown shooting. There is a entirely separate investigation into the Ferguson P.D. concerning racial bias and unconstitutional procedures.

Given the difficulty of proving a criminal civil rights action, and the leaks to the media, a federal indictment, no less conviction, appears very remote. As I don't know the details of the investigation of the whole police department, I cannot offer any opinion about its chance of success.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good questions excepting the 2nd in your subject line. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #1
He did testify before the grand jury Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #2
Exactly. Why wasn't his "past association with disbanded corrupt Jennings" asked about? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #6
Please explain to me how that works in a grand jury? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #20
The prosecutor examines the witnesses Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #21
Wilson was not a "defendant" since he was not charged. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #30
Well he was the supposed target of the prosecution Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #33
My take is that the prosecutor had no real intention of seeking an indictment. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #34
The DA basically just let Wilson talk. jeff47 Nov 2014 #22
Are members of the jury allowed to question witnesses? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #31
Depends on the state, IIRC. jeff47 Nov 2014 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author woolldog Nov 2014 #55
Jeff woolldog Nov 2014 #57
I don't know but... Little Star Nov 2014 #3
Because that is what the tear gassing protesters and the media and IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #7
"cross examine" means to be examined by someone other pipoman Nov 2014 #4
Since when was the person who called a witness prohibited from questioning the witness? Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #5
The point is that it isn't a "cross examination" it is a "direct examination" pipoman Nov 2014 #17
OK so you are pointing out a technicality Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #18
I believe there was no provable crime committed pipoman Nov 2014 #25
No, it is not legal to kill a fleeing person Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #26
Factually untrue since 1985. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #50
Don't believe anything pipoman writes. woolldog Nov 2014 #58
Really? And yes, KKK. They did fundraising for him, and threatened the protesters. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #8
So what? pipoman Nov 2014 #19
Lots of people have called Wilson a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #23
Nobody with any credibility, nobody with a story or anecdote, pipoman Nov 2014 #36
In other words no one you agree with has called him a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #39
Then educate me pipoman Nov 2014 #40
Many people have read his racist testimony Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #44
Only stupid people. pipoman Nov 2014 #47
I would be interested in any proof... Oktober Nov 2014 #77
How Do You Know That Without Effective Cross Examination? Stallion Nov 2014 #29
"cross examination" doesn't exist in a grand jury... pipoman Nov 2014 #37
Of course, neither does a Defendant getting to testify based on prosecutor soft ball direct Stallion Nov 2014 #38
The entire proceeding was like every other grand jury pipoman Nov 2014 #41
Complete and Utter Nonsense Stallion Nov 2014 #43
While I take your point, Grand Jurors themselves can question witnesses, completely KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #48
THIS IS WRONG woolldog Nov 2014 #56
if the prosecutor had the slightest interest in an indictment, wilson wouldn't have even been there. unblock Nov 2014 #9
That is the point, isn't it? Why didn't the Prosecutor want an indictment? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #10
prosecutors and the police need each other, they don't like alienating each other. unblock Nov 2014 #13
Plus the dad/mom/brother/uncle/cousin all working for St. Louis law enforcement. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #16
Hiding? Maybe they're protecting something...like one of their own. HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #11
Excellent questions IdaBriggs. JEB Nov 2014 #12
Massive KKK infiltration in police forces in Central MO. nt tridim Nov 2014 #14
Your questions are good. The suggestion that there could be a deep connection with the KKK is also jwirr Nov 2014 #15
This is all being done in plain sight no one is hiding anything. gordianot Nov 2014 #24
Most of those have been answered. Igel Nov 2014 #27
A Grand Jury is not a trial. earthside Nov 2014 #28
I'm trying to think about it this way. mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #35
Not only was Wilson not cross examined by the prosecutors aint_no_life_nowhere Nov 2014 #42
In response, branford Nov 2014 #45
I think to a big extent that's just the way things are done in that community Fumesucker Nov 2014 #46
Even if Wilson had been questioned further madville Nov 2014 #49
I do not believe that is how things work in a grand jury. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #54
An individual still retains their 5th Ammendment rights in a grand jury Glassunion Nov 2014 #61
So Clinton had to answer because he wasn't up against criminal charges / just civil? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #65
He would not have to testify to the Jennings corruption charges either Glassunion Nov 2014 #69
The DA did not want an indictment Gothmog Nov 2014 #51
Maybe they forgot to check for Brown's fingerprints on Wilson's gun? B Calm Nov 2014 #52
That is one of the MANY "failures in protocol" - they did not do this. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #53
I'm struggling to figure out most of your post. Glassunion Nov 2014 #59
Sure there is. woolldog Nov 2014 #60
I think you are missing something. Glassunion Nov 2014 #62
Wrong. woolldog Nov 2014 #63
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you are stating. Glassunion Nov 2014 #67
Let me clarify then. woolldog Nov 2014 #70
I agree Glassunion Nov 2014 #74
Of course, Wilson *is* the Defendant here. woolldog Nov 2014 #75
Ok... Where to start. Glassunion Nov 2014 #78
*sigh* woolldog Nov 2014 #79
*sigh* indeed Glassunion Nov 2014 #80
Yes. You need to provide the drafters of the Federal Rules your internet definitions. woolldog Nov 2014 #81
I have been following closely, so let me try to clarify. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #64
As your own link points out.... woolldog Nov 2014 #66
Thank you, but I am not a lawyer so I apparently used a word that made sense to me, but not the IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #68
Bingo! Glassunion Nov 2014 #71
well woolldog Nov 2014 #72
Thank you! I think she is using it because that is what Prosecutors usually do with Defendants. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #73
Endless "buts" "what if" "wait just a minute" reminds me of Trayvon Martin, who was simply NoJusticeNoPeace Nov 2014 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What are the authorities ...»Reply #45