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

Recommendations

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

That's an interesting turn of events. Hoyt Jan 2015 #1
Sue for what, and can she sue a public official? I can see how the families can file civil rights still_one Jan 2015 #2
Of course you can sue public officials Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #3
got it, thanks still_one Jan 2015 #12
Sue to allow grand jurors on that case to talk about it. LiberalFighter Jan 2015 #4
thanks still_one Jan 2015 #9
Sue to be able to speak out on the GJ proceeding 4139 Jan 2015 #5
Transparency is *always* a good thing. Feral Child Jan 2015 #10
The grand juror lacks legal standing. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #6
Psychological damage? Feral Child Jan 2015 #8
No harm? Pantagruelsmember Jan 2015 #11
She can claim and prove harm to her reputation and character cosmicone Jan 2015 #14
Your signature quote speaks to the juror's need to make the proceedings public. displacedtexan Jan 2015 #15
What? Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2015 #17
I disagree ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #19
I, too, cannot see how the juror has any standing in federal court (or state court), branford Jan 2015 #30
Of course the grand juror is being harmed as their first amendment rights are being restricted. PoliticAverse Jan 2015 #60
Butterworth was a witness, not a grand juror. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #84
Since the prosecutor released info to the public, those that have discovered AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #34
What legally protectable interest does the grand juror have? ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #37
Federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff's right to free speech is being abridged. John1956PA Jan 2015 #45
Your argument assumes the grand juror has a right to speak about the proceedings. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #46
Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), gives the witness the right to speak after adjournment. John1956PA Jan 2015 #50
And I would counter with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6(e)(2)(B)(i). ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #53
First, that rule is federal, not state. Jim Lane Jan 2015 #57
I realize it's a federal rule, but the point is... ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #63
Ah...but you haven't considered the intervenors. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #64
Why would I? ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #65
How does this juror not have standing? They were handed three statutes and threatened with msanthrope Jan 2015 #66
Do you know what standing is? ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #67
Um...as a criminal defense attorney who has practiced in both state and federal court, yes. msanthrope Jan 2015 #68
No, I'm applying it correctly. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #74
You are very carefully ignoring the threat of prosecution described in the Complaint. That, my msanthrope Jan 2015 #77
I'm not ignoring it-- it simply isn't there. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #78
You and I (and the ACLU) will have to agree to disagree. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #79
Indeed. n/t ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #83
Plaintiff would argue that her standing is equivalent to plaintiff's in Butterworth v. Smith. John1956PA Jan 2015 #69
Note, too, that the Plaintiff has already been threatened with prosecution--- msanthrope Jan 2015 #70
Every grand jhuror is threatened with prosecution, if the reveal details of the proceedings. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #75
Standing is different from the merits Jim Lane Jan 2015 #88
I'm aware of what standing is. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #90
You and I have different views of standing. Jim Lane Jan 2015 #91
We do indeed. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #92
Butterworth involved a witness, a reporter, not a grand juror. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #76
Your argument is essentially that grand juries violate the First Amendment. branford Jan 2015 #47
Lawsuit seeks to have juror exempted from the MO law requiring that he/she remain silent. John1956PA Jan 2015 #7
Off topic. Feral Child Jan 2015 #13
WOW ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #16
I still have hope for justice in this case.. mountain grammy Jan 2015 #18
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #20
Who is this "some" you speak of? starroute Jan 2015 #23
Results bravenak Jan 2015 #25
Not sure I see how jurors justify hiding a post because they disagree with it. Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2015 #55
No, the dual NY police killing was not a reflection of Ferguson. vkkv Jan 2015 #24
Gutsy post, sad but true. nt brush Jan 2015 #26
Nothing "gutsy' about it heaven05 Jan 2015 #27
It was stupid. bravenak Jan 2015 #29
I agree that no one wants dead cops . . . brush Jan 2015 #39
I was just disagreeing with the justice part. bravenak Jan 2015 #43
I interpreted it differently brush Jan 2015 #36
Post deleted. I admit when I'm wrong. Feral Child Jan 2015 #52
Again, please see my reply to bravenak above brush Jan 2015 #56
Post deleted. I admit when I'm wrong. Feral Child Jan 2015 #58
Unbelievable! brush Jan 2015 #62
Post deleted, I admit when I'm wrong. Feral Child Jan 2015 #85
The cop killer was obviously crazy brush Jan 2015 #87
Bullshit. Killing those random cops wasn't "justice" of any kind, and only an idiot would think so. arcane1 Jan 2015 #32
Well, look up Khadijah Lynch of Brandeis U, who had "no sympathy" for the cops, 7962 Jan 2015 #80
An apology to DUer "brush" Feral Child Jan 2015 #48
Pls see my reply to bravenak above. nt brush Jan 2015 #49
Only dumb-asses and/or people with an agenda would say that "Justice Has Been Dispensed". arcane1 Jan 2015 #31
I was going to comment on how this juror could not have known what was going on, until I niyad Jan 2015 #21
BINGO!!! Even if she doesn't speak the proffering of the Lawsuite speaks even louder... uponit7771 Jan 2015 #22
Where is the popcorn? blackspade Jan 2015 #28
All Juror Doe needs to do is say just enough in avebury Jan 2015 #33
If the decision was made to prosecute the grand juror, branford Jan 2015 #35
Why would anyone want to be charged with a crime Curmudgeoness Jan 2015 #38
I don't actually think that they would charge the person avebury Jan 2015 #51
What is the penalty lancer78 Jan 2015 #40
Why is the prosecutor allowed to discuss the GJ..... daleanime Jan 2015 #41
I think this is the reason the lawsuit has a real chance of succeeding Bjorn Against Jan 2015 #42
better link alp227 Jan 2015 #44
"The county prosecutor admits that some of the witnesses were lying" wordpix Jan 2015 #89
The more attention brought to this troubling matter - the Better! laserhaas Jan 2015 #54
Kicked Enthusiast Jan 2015 #59
The process was flawed and designed to produce a no bill Gothmog Jan 2015 #61
Add criminal charges for misuse of public office. DeSwiss Jan 2015 #71
Wow! K&R Number23 Jan 2015 #72
Fighting Court Secrecy, Ferguson Juror Sues to Break Gag-Order Judi Lynn Jan 2015 #73
Despite my personal doubts and misgivings about standing, injury and other matters branford Jan 2015 #81
If McCulloch had nothing to hide, he wouldn't insist on a gag rule. n/t. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #82
The grand jury secrecy rule is state law, and consistent nationwide. branford Jan 2015 #86
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Grand Juror Sues McCulloc...»Reply #44