General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Lawrence O'Donnell uncovers shocking prosecutorial misconduct. (Wilson grand jury.) [View all]JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but the law probably needs to be changed.
Even though legal experts agree that this subsection of the law has been at odds with the U.S. Constitution for almost three decades, the language is still in state law. In fact, the new criminal code that takes effect in 2017 retains the language.
That is the language that Flanders, Goldman and Sen. Jamilah Nasheed want to change.
Continuing confusion
Even though the legislature had not changed the law, the Missouri Supreme Court adopted a new jury instruction that complies with Garner. It does not allow a police officer to claim he was entitled to shoot an unarmed fleeing felon.
But Flanders and other legal experts think that Garner and the jury instruction dont solve the problem.
Flanders said the prosecutors in the grand jury actually were wrong to say Garner trumps the law. Garner was the constitutional standard for a civil lawsuit. Missouri does not have to criminalize all police action that is unconstitutional. So, Flanders and other lawyers believe the state law still is in effect.
If Wilson had been indicted using the Garner rule against shooting an unarmed fleeing felon, he could have challenged any conviction by relying on the Missouri law that permits an officer to shoot an unarmed suspect.
(from the same link I posted)
I also tried to find further clarification in how Supreme Court rulings on civil cases apply to criminal proceedings but no luck.
On edit - the law has two parts (actually 3) (a) and (b), they were told to disregard (a)