General Discussion

Spazito

(55,575 posts)

149. No, it was not "clarified"...

Sat Nov 29, 2014, 01:18 PM

Nov 2014

The ADA assigned to the Grand Jury case gave the jurors a statute that had been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985, she gave this to the jurors BEFORE wilson testified. This unconstitutional statute allowed police officers to shoot suspects if they were fleeing.
She did NOT correct her 'mistake' until the jury were nearing deliberation and did not explain what the change was at all. She did say, some of the original statute was still good and left it at that. When a juror asked if the US Supreme Court overruled Missouri statutes and the answer given was "Don't worry about that now".

You should watch Lawrence O'Donnell's rewrite segment from Wednesday night, it is clear there was NO clarification provided, quite the opposite.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I think Wilson is a bad cop, quite possibly a racist, but I also think this was an unwinnable case. [View all] Nye Bevan Nov 2014 OP

holy shit the most rational OP I have seen in a month snooper2 Nov 2014 #1

Bravo. GGJohn Nov 2014 #2

Yeah, Nostradamus McC thought potential race riots were a better desired outcome than a tough trial. WinkyDink Nov 2014 #3

McCulloch saw the choices as (1) no indictment, or Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #13

Or... BronxBoy Nov 2014 #22

The moment that Wilson got out his gun, it was inevitable that community tensions JDPriestly Nov 2014 #106

Should the district attorney always act based on protests and riots? TexasMommaWithAHat Nov 2014 #46

Agreed. WinkyDink Nov 2014 #75

No. Just no. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #4

I don't think McCulloch being a "lazy ass" is the explanation, either. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #6

I agree. McCulloch wasn't a lazy ass at all. He worked *very hard* to prevent an indictment BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #7

How did he "work hard" to stay on the case? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #11

He took it to a complicit M$M who launched softball questions. Preparing bullet-points in order BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #14

Shenanigans... Oktober Nov 2014 #36

A DA works closely with the police force. There is an inherent conflict of interest and a potential JDPriestly Nov 2014 #107

A DA almost always has a close relationship with law enforcement... Oktober Nov 2014 #112

It's different when a police officer is the defendent gollygee Nov 2014 #132

Are you suggesting that every DA should step aside for any cases that involve the police? Oktober Nov 2014 #133

If the police officer is the defendant, then yes gollygee Nov 2014 #134

You have a more generous interpretation of McCulloch than I have. kwassa Nov 2014 #5

I acknowledged that McCulloch could have obtained an indictment Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #9

But we don't know that this is true. kwassa Nov 2014 #26

Well...That's what happens in trials..... BronxBoy Nov 2014 #35

Your ignorance is amazing. 99Forever Nov 2014 #60

One of the things I keep reading is that several witnesses lied, saying he was shot in the back. Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #104

Plenty of witnesses admitted in front of the grand jury that they had lied. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #144

Prosecutors present the evidence selectively ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #125

Yes, he could have presented the guy who claimed to see an execution-style shooting Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #147

I read the entire Johnson testimony TexasMommaWithAHat Nov 2014 #47

Did you notice Johnson's stating that Wilson backed up right next to Johnson and Brown JDPriestly Nov 2014 #110

+100. Wilson's acts of backing up the car and opening the door warrant examination. John1956PA Nov 2014 #137

No adversarial cross-examination, no exclusion of evidence, no trial judge to keep the attorneys JDPriestly Nov 2014 #109

McCulloch being a Democrat has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the... Spazito Nov 2014 #8

For better or worse, I would be more suspicious of racist motives if he was a Tea partier. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #10

You *do* know that his father was murdered by a Black man 50 years prior to Michael Brown's BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #18

Applying that logic.... Smarmie Doofus Nov 2014 #86

Nice defense of McCulloch...that "black females" remark is an especially nice touch, Doofus. BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #129

McCulloch is prosecuting a police assault CincyDem Nov 2014 #131

If this case doesn't prove McCulloch's personal vendetta against Blacks, nothing can. BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #151

You do know there are racists with a (D), often referred to as Dixiecrats, ... Spazito Nov 2014 #19

Less likely, sure. But we have out racists, even here on DU. morningfog Nov 2014 #25

I dunno JustAnotherGen Nov 2014 #87

Whether it's "wrong" or not, it is incredibly naive and ridiculous Number23 Nov 2014 #103

I specifically take issue with your claim that McCulloch lacks the trust of the community. branford Nov 2014 #98

You may support him, so may others, or they used to... Spazito Nov 2014 #99

I neither support McCulloch action in the grand jury or reside in St. Louis County. branford Nov 2014 #100

You may continue to take issue with the question of "community", while ignoring the heart... Spazito Nov 2014 #130

McCulloch does not have the trust of the black community. Is that specific enough for you? kwassa Nov 2014 #154

OK.... BronxBoy Nov 2014 #138

Don't assume he's not racist TBF Nov 2014 #12

Indeed! etherealtruth Nov 2014 #16

Same here. I think he did execute Brown as an act of revenge LittleBlue Nov 2014 #15

Yep, this was un-winnable in court FLPanhandle Nov 2014 #31

Wilson could EASILY be charged for shooting at someone FROM the back... when there was uponit7771 Nov 2014 #48

Bravo for keeping a clear head and actually looking at facts Lee-Lee Nov 2014 #17

The case may have been unwinnable.... BronxBoy Nov 2014 #20

The criminal justice system can be disgracefully racist. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #23

Well.... BronxBoy Nov 2014 #30

Thanks for a really wise contribution to the discussion. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #111

Good post. 840high Nov 2014 #21

I agree but for very different reasons JonLP24 Nov 2014 #24

Yes, when I want unabashed right-wing bullshit, I cite the Washington Times. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2014 #27

I posted the story because it supported how I already felt JonLP24 Nov 2014 #45

Yes, it's so much better that the prosecutor didn't actually present his evidence jeff47 Nov 2014 #49

It is convenient for their point of view JonLP24 Nov 2014 #52

Grand juries aren't supposed to be fair to the defendant jeff47 Nov 2014 #53

I would favor getting rid of grand juries or reform the process JonLP24 Nov 2014 #55

If you get rid of grand juries, then there is no check on prosectuors jeff47 Nov 2014 #68

There is no check now JonLP24 Nov 2014 #70

There's a slight check. It's not wonderful, but it's better than no check. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2014 #71

There just is no replacement for our adversarial trial system. It is one of the greatest JDPriestly Nov 2014 #114

well...that's a really credible souce noiretextatique Nov 2014 #28

I had no idea if the source is right wing or not JonLP24 Nov 2014 #41

he used it as a defense for wilson noiretextatique Nov 2014 #43

I'd disagree JonLP24 Nov 2014 #44

You're just so precious. The point is that DAs like McCulloch don't use this KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #54

I agree JonLP24 Nov 2014 #56

Did you watch Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC discussing the terrible mistake the JDPriestly Nov 2014 #116

Someone who I mentioned somewhere else graduated from several law schools, including Yale Law JonLP24 Nov 2014 #120

this is such bullshit gollygee Nov 2014 #153

What is the surprise or confusion? The Grand Jury is a puppet of the prosecution TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #88

That is part of my criticism as well JonLP24 Nov 2014 #102

The reason that the evidence and hearing before the grand jury are kept secret is that JDPriestly Nov 2014 #115

The Washington Times is far from a credible source... Spazito Nov 2014 #32

Do you know ANYTHING about the Washington Times? nt Logical Nov 2014 #67

Other than that some of the very best DUers cite it as a source? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #92

+1 LostInAnomie Nov 2014 #101

If a story has substance, some other source can be found. Puhleese. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #117

Heads up. The Washington Times is generally very right-wing and is not a respected source JDPriestly Nov 2014 #113

sounds nice, but this is not plausible. if that were the case, then one would expect unblock Nov 2014 #29

That is it. You explained it perfectly. Rex Nov 2014 #37

particularly for prosecutors. he might have chosen party affiliation based on career prospects. unblock Nov 2014 #40

By publishing the evidence, McCulloch guaranteed that the evidence is tainted. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #118

This was not an unusual case. Wilson was given special treatment. morningfog Nov 2014 #33

Really??? BrotherIvan Nov 2014 #34

Not all of them. Rex Nov 2014 #38

They'll be here BrotherIvan Nov 2014 #39

Well said mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #81

He decided to defend Wilson, I think it is obvious at to why. Rex Nov 2014 #42

Yes or No: Did\Does probable cause exist that Darren Wilson commited a crime in KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #50

The grand jury saw all the evidence and said "no" (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #57

I'm asking you yourself for your opinion. I'm well aware of what KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #64

yes. He shot a man holding his hands up. robinlynne Nov 2014 #78

How do you know that? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #90

Cyril Wecht, the famous medical examiner, determined it, based on the EVIDENCE. robinlynne Nov 2014 #95

Not sure if Kilgore Nov 2014 #124

How can you know? You hold a trial with at least two attorneys who argue the law and the JDPriestly Nov 2014 #119

Your OP illustrates two common and bogus notions whatchamacallit Nov 2014 #51

LOL, how often has he let the suspect testify? nt Logical Nov 2014 #58

Most of the time no defense attorney will allow the suspect to testify. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #59

Yet wilson's defense attorney had no concerns about him testifying it appears... Spazito Nov 2014 #61

This was not a typical case (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #62

LOL, you've got that right... Spazito Nov 2014 #63

So, so, so right. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #122

Which the prosecuter told the grand jury NUMEROUS time. Sound odd to you? nt Logical Nov 2014 #66

How often does a prosecutor allow a suspect to explain their side to a grand jury...... Logical Nov 2014 #65

Yes. I was shocked that he was allowed to testify or asked to testify. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #121

Unwinnable case: A case where a cop, or 1%er, is the defendant. nt Zorra Nov 2014 #69

If all of the witnesses had told a consistent story, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #72

What percentage of cases do you think chieftain Nov 2014 #73

IIt was absolutely backed up by the forensics. robinlynne Nov 2014 #79

Nonsense Demsrule86 Nov 2014 #74

Aren't you the one who challenged me to show a DU'er who said "white privilege does not exist"? U4ikLefty Nov 2014 #76

I take it you did not see Cyril Wecht's video? simple forensics show that Brown robinlynne Nov 2014 #77

I guess I shouldn't be shocked rbrnmw Nov 2014 #80

Question mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #82

That's a good question maybe one of Legal posters could provide an acnswer rbrnmw Nov 2014 #83

"Cracker" is now a racist term. Wella Nov 2014 #84

McCulloch is a racist devil mwrguy Nov 2014 #85

Um... Try These On: WillyT Nov 2014 #89

I already acknowledged that McCulloch could have obtained an indictment if he was determined to, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #91

And All An Indictment Does... Is Let It Go To A Jury Trial... WillyT Nov 2014 #93

That is one of the stupidest Caretha Nov 2014 #94

It's a matter of opinion. I think a jury trial would be a good thing. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #123

There is nothing partisan in this loyalsister Nov 2014 #96

Agree completely. LostInAnomie Nov 2014 #97

Are you a lawyer? JDPriestly Nov 2014 #105

It may not be the point, but it's reality Kilgore Nov 2014 #126

No prosecutor wants to be sitting in court, cringing, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #142

Interesting opinion. Savannahmann Nov 2014 #108

I agree with you davidpdx Nov 2014 #127

Intellectually disingenuous. Feral Child Nov 2014 #128

Wow, the ignorance IHateTheGOP Nov 2014 #135

Thanks. I always welcome this kind of constructive criticism (nt) Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #148

Disagree, there was a great deal of conflicting testimony treestar Nov 2014 #136

So choosing to present an unconstitutional law to GJ and relying on this presentation for a failure lonestarnot Nov 2014 #139

I believe this issue was clarified for the grand jurors before they began their deliberations. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #146

No, it was not "clarified"... Spazito Nov 2014 #149

The only thing I agree with from this disingenuous post chieftain Nov 2014 #140

"Throwing the case" would have been simple. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #141

What's ugly is chieftain Nov 2014 #143

Several witnesses admitted to lying. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #145

That's 3 by your count. chieftain Nov 2014 #150

Let me make it easier for you. chieftain Nov 2014 #152