815 users online (146 members and 669 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 125
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs CO (sorta close enough)
    Posts
    716

    Grand Juror in Michael Brown Case Asking Court For Gag Order Removed

    A couple of things since the Grand Jury decision in this case has happened and I couldn't find an open thread on it. The prosecutor has admitted to knowingly allowing persons to lie under oath while testifying, and now a juror claiming the prosecutor is not being honest in his statements regarding what was heard, said and done during the proceedings.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...-order-n279916
    imo, jmo, imho and all that stuff

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    LA(Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    604
    The ACLU. Anonymous juror. How convenient.

    Please make it stop.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    DofC
    Posts
    22,012
    Payday.
    __________
    “Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet.” - Maya Angelou

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334
    "The grand juror was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. According to the suit, he or she questions
    "the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges
    ." "
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...-order-n279916

    Who's making implication?

    IIRC, in Mo. a grand jury's decision to indict (or not) does not require unanimity,
    so an non-indictment means a majority (%?) of the grand jury members voted not to indict.
    Does mean the majority of grand jurors agreed on no indictment.

    Does not mean the majority of grand jurors believed that there was no support for charges,
    does mean that majority of grand jurors believed there was insufficient support.
    And believed it as to each of the charges.


    Was Prosecutor not being "honest in his statements regarding what was heard, said and done during the proceedings"?
    IDK, different issue.

    JM2cts.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Steft50 View Post
    A couple of things since the Grand Jury decision in this case has happened and I couldn't find an open thread on it. The prosecutor has admitted to knowingly allowing persons to lie under oath while testifying, and now a juror claiming the prosecutor is not being honest in his statements regarding what was heard, said and done during the proceedings.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...-order-n279916
    And the bizarre just got more bizarre with this case. If we went to the unprecedented step of releasing transcripts, why not let the Grand Jurors talk too as long as their are certain limitations/restrictions about what can be said, much like with the transcripts, no personal or identifying information discussed. I say have it all out at this point.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    This may sound bad, but if it were me I'd probably write a book and make millions. What's the maximum fine for a misdemeanor? Frankly, I think it would be a good, behind the scenes read too. Just glimpsed at the statute and I'm not sure they could charge under that statute either as long as they don't disclose names. I guess the question is, would the grand juror be considered as disclosing evidence if that evidence was already disclosed by the prosecuting attorney himself. I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction from a jury regardless under the circumstances.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    This may sound bad, but if it were me I'd probably write a book and make millions. What's the maximum fine for a misdemeanor? Frankly, I think it would be a good, behind the scenes read too. Just glimpsed at the statute and I'm not sure they could charge under that statute either as long as they don't disclose names. I guess the question is, would the grand juror be considered as disclosing evidence if that evidence was already disclosed by the prosecuting attorney himself. I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction from a jury regardless under the circumstances.
    Link pls, preferably directly to RSMo. Thx in adv.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Quote Originally Posted by al66pine View Post
    "The grand juror was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. According to the suit, he or she questions
    "the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges
    ." "
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...-order-n279916

    Who's making implication?

    IIRC, in Mo. a grand jury's decision to indict (or not) does not require unanimity,
    so an non-indictment means a majority (%?) of the grand jury members voted not to indict.
    Does mean the majority of grand jurors agreed on no indictment.

    Does not mean the majority of grand jurors believed that there was no support for charges,
    does mean that majority of grand jurors believed there was insufficient support.
    And believed it as to each of the charges.


    Was Prosecutor not being "honest in his statements regarding what was heard, said and done during the proceedings"?
    IDK, different issue.

    JM2cts.


    Yes and no. Does not require unanimity but also means that as few as 4 grand jurors didn't vote for an indictment to be issued. The other 8 could have believed an indictment should have been issued. Not a majority.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/st...000003201.html

    This is the only Missouri Statute I read. If there are others, and there may be, please let me know.

    540.320. No grand juror shall disclose any evidence given before the grand jury, nor the name of any witness who appeared before them, except when lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto; nor shall he disclose the fact of any indictment having been found against any person for a felony, not in actual confinement, until the defendant shall have been arrested thereon. Any juror violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    Yes and no. Does not require unanimity but also means that as few as 4 grand jurors didn't vote for an indictment to be issued. The other 8 could have believed an indictment should have been issued. Not a majority.
    Thanks for clarification about vote needed, not just a simple majority,
    I posted "majority (%?)" because I did not recall if indictment required simple majority or other majority, knew it did not require unanimity.

    Point is still the same: The non-indictment does not imply that all grand jurors believed anything.

    JM2cts.


    Also, I found pdf of Roe's complaint for prospective relief, declaratory judgment and will read it asap.
    http://www.stltoday.com/suit-filed-b...17541812a.html

    No paywall, no $ subscription req'ed, but may need to answer a few questions before reading all. Hope this works for everyone.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    So shall not disclose any evidence given - but what if it was already disclosed by the prosecuting attorney himself.
    Nor the name of any witness who appeared before them - I would suggest that this should still be the case.
    Except when lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto - That exception doesn't apply here.
    nor shall he disclose the fact of any indictment having been found against any person for a felony, not in actual confinement - Doesn't apply here either.

    So it seems to me, based on this statute at least, that the question is whether or not discussing the evidence that has already been disclosed by the prosecuting attorney is still considered disclosing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,310
    interesting dilemma. Jurors are bound not to divulge. But in most instances the prosecution does not divulge any of the evidence put before them. In this instance the public was told that all that evidence WAS being divulged.

    Is it too late to try to shove the horses back into the barn now that the door was thrown wide by the DA himself? I think it may be.
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,939
    Nothing like stirring up the masses again. We'll never be able to move on from this. Ever.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,310
    Did you really think we would be able to, oh_gal? Too many are too invested in this case because it was the beginning, the flash point for the larger "movement" or what some are referring to as the "revolution". Sorry trying hard to keep sarcasm out of this.

    As sick as I am of discussing a person I consider a criminal who assaulted and tried to disarm an officer of the law, I do find the legal question that is now raised interesting intellectually. I am fascinated by the legal wrangling. It's what makes trial watching so addictive for me. The wrangling. This would seem to go into areas heretofr uncharted. So for that reason alone I will probably be following the outcome of this new wrinkle.
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by tlcya View Post
    interesting dilemma. Jurors are bound not to divulge. But in most instances the prosecution does not divulge any of the evidence put before them. In this instance the public was told that all that evidence WAS being divulged.
    Is it too late to try to shove the horses back into the barn now that the door was thrown wide by the DA himself? I think it may be.
    bbm

    Imo, in announcing way back when, Prosecutor made mistake saying - all evd. w/b disclosed,
    without qualifier about 'as allowed per ct order.'
    Maybe qualifying it would have put too much pressure on judge.

    Then after grand jury decided, toolate for him
    -to graft on a qualifier about what his office was disclosing,
    -to put the horse back in the barn.
    So just hope nobody notices missing statements/interviews?

    JM2cts.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast