Missing pregnant Shanann Watts and her two daughter's bodies found, husband arrested
Join the latest discussion

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

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Steft50, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Steft50

    Steft50 Active Member

    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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/mi...own-case-wants-court-remove-gag-order-n279916
     
  2. CuriousGuy

    CuriousGuy New Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ACLU. Anonymous juror. How convenient.

    Please make it stop.
     
  3. popsicle

    popsicle faith hope love

    Messages:
    22,096
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Payday.
     
  4. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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/mi...own-case-wants-court-remove-gag-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. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link pls, preferably directly to RSMo. Thx in adv.
     
  8. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000003201.html

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

     
  10. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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-...pdf_dc32f334-a7d5-500f-951b-95c17541812a.html

    No paywall, no $ subscription req'ed, but may need to answer a few questions before reading all. Hope this works for everyone.
     
  11. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  13. oh_gal

    oh_gal Active Member

    Messages:
    5,939
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nothing like stirring up the masses again. We'll never be able to move on from this. Ever.
     
  14. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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". :sigh: 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.
     
  15. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Presumably Roe is an adult, got a complete explanation of the process, swore an oath to follow statutes, ct. orders, to remain silent, etc.,
    but now wants to "speak about the experience of being a grand juror" and to "engage in expressive activities."

    Or perhaps cash in by MSM appearances, interviews, book, blogs, etc. As popsicle said "payday."
    JM2cts
     
  17. bill.sweet.90

    bill.sweet.90 New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it makes another DA pause before pulling this kind of thing, then maybe it's a teeny step towards making a cop pause before committing this kind of thing. And lives might be saved. Thumbs up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's say, after a ct order in G/J Roe's favor re his/her complaint, Roe states in MSM or SocMedia that in G/J room:
    - GJ#2 made racist comment A,
    - GJ#3 made racist comment B,
    - GJ#4 made racist comment C, etc.

    It's poss GJ Roe is telling TT, TWT, & NBT Truth about opinions expressed by GJs, yes.
    What if none of the above is true andGJ Roe is lying about all of it or telling a hybrid version?

    Then what?
    Do G/J #2, 3 and 4 need to bring ct action to prevent prosecutor from charging them for breaking their oaths of silence,
    allowing them to violate Mo. 540.310 and tell MSM & SocMedia their version of what they said, what others said?
    They may tell the truth or they may lie or tell some hybrid version.

    Then what?
    Do G/Js #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 need to bring ct actions, so they can break their oaths of silence?

    Rinse and repeat ad nauseam for this case and other cases. No, thank you, imo.

    540.310. http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000003101.html
    "No member of a grand jury shall be obliged or allowed to testify or declare in what manner
    he or any other member of the grand jury voted on any question before them,
    or what opinions were expressed by any juror in relation to any such question."
    bbm

    Per Mo law (below) G/J foreperson signs a form to certify the vote and it is presented to the ct, in the presence of the G/J members.
    If the foreperson's certification does not accurately reflect the vote, then the G/J members have an opportunity to bring to ct's attention. Otherwise, they should keep their oath of silence, imo.

    G/J Roe can "contribute to the current public dialog about race relations" 365/24/7
    without revealing his/her opinions or opinions of other G/Js. No need for a ct order. No violation of 1st Amendment rights.

    I see the wisdom of Mo. statute. IOW what's said in G/J room stays in G/J room.

    JM2cts and I could be wrong.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other sections of RSMo
    True bill--concurrence by nine grand jurors. 540.250.
    "No indictment can be found without the concurrence of at least nine grand jurors. When so found, and not otherwise,
    the foreperson of the grand jury shall certify under his hand that such indictment is a true bill,
    by the following endorsement thereon, thus: "A true bill. A B, foreperson". "

    Indictment not a true bill, when.
    540.260.
    "When there is not a concurrence of nine grand jurors in finding an indictment,
    the foreperson shall certify, under his hand, that such an indictment is not a true bill."

    Indictments--presented to court--filed.
    540.270.
    "Indictments found and presentments made by a grand jury shall be presented by their foreperson, in their presence, to the court, and shall be there filed and remain as records of such court." bbm
     
  19. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    bbm sbm

    Prosecutor released-
    - transcript of LE interview w Witness #N, on date1 and date2,
    - transcript of G/J testimony of Witness #N,
    - ditto for many but not all witnesses.

    So if in MSM or S/M interview, G/J Roe read aloud verbatim all transcripts of every witness interview & G/J testimony ,
    then that may not violate Mo law 540.310, imo., because Roe is not disclosing evd.

    540.310. http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/st...000003101.html
    "No member of a grand jury shall be obliged or allowed to testify or declare in what manner
    he or any other member of the grand jury voted on any question before them,
    or what opinions were expressed by any juror in relation to any such question."
    bbm

    But what is the news value of that? None, zip, zero, nada, zilch.
    The news value is in G/J deliberations, i.e., G/J Roe discussing G/J votes or opinions expressed by any G/J violates 540.310.
    IOW, the potential 540.310 violation is discussing the G/J votes or opinions of the evd.

    JM2cts and I could be wrong.
     
  20. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to force a complete change of the grand jury system.

    I don't think it will be successful. I can't see how suing a prosecutor overturns state law. I also can't see any remedy that allows this grand juror to speak about any aspect of their service on this case, that doesn't intrude upon the rights of the other grand jurors to remain silent and to follow the law.

    This GJ is seeking his or her 15 min of fame, IMO. And the ACLU has their own agenda, so agreed to bring the case.

    Hasn't the GJ Doe already broken state law by disclosing his or her status to the attorney/s bringing the lawsuit?

    (I haven't read the suit linked above yet, but will later.)
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice