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

[reedus23]

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

Yepp and if I wasn't going to have a problem with someone having a payday from the cast of characters, it's a grand juror. Would rather them have a payday than the Brown family, Sharpton, McCulloch or Wilson.

 

[reedus23]

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.)

I don't think it's veiled at all. Somewhere along the way I thought I read that that is one thing the grand jury is interested in - reform to the grand jury system.

I don't know if Doe will win or not but certainly the federal court can find that state law is unconstitutional in so far as it violates the grand juror's freedom of speech, in which case yes, suing the prosecutor can overturn state law.

I'm sure part of it is seeking their 15 minutes of fame, but I also don't doubt that it goes beyond that. If it was just 15 minutes of fame, write a book, make millions or hundreds of thousands, let the prosecutor charge you and pay the thousand dollar fine from the hundreds of thousands you made.

I doubt that they've broken any law by speaking to their attorney. No chance that anyone gets charged for speaking to an attorney.

Personally, I hope they are successful. I am most curious to find out how this case was handled and presented differently than all of the other cases presented during the term of the GJ. I think it is a major reason why local prosecutors and LE cannot and should not be responsible for investigating and presenting any officer involved shooting. I don't want to string cops up by the neck, but if, in fact, the case was treated differently in it's presentment, that's a problem and that has to be fixed. I would be all in favor of a new, elected position that handles all abuse of force and officer involved shooting cases that may end up in criminal charges. The public can then trust the individual to do their job in investigating and prosecuting those cases that warrant it or else they won't be re-elected and in turn that will give more legitimacy and trust by the public in those cases where the decision is made to not bring charges.

 

[K_Z]

http://www.stltoday.com/suit-filed-...pdf_dc32f334-a7d5-500f-951b-95c17541812a.html

Item #32 (page 6 of 11)- Of course the prosecutor spoke about the group of grand jurors and their decision "collectively!" Ridiculous (and conceited) for this GJ'r to think that anything presented would not be a collective decision. And who really cares if this GJ has a different opinion than the prosecutor? The GJ'r had ample opportunity to express his or her opinion within the confines of the GJ proceedings. The GJ's has ONE vote of 12, and his or her vote is not entitled to any MORE weight, or any LESS weight than the voice and perspective of ONE GJ'r. And that is EXACTLY what this GJ is upset about! He or she believes his or her vote and opinion (presumably dissenting with the majority of the GJ on something) should be given some kind of "special" consideration. Big deal-- this GJ'r disagreed. That's why there are 12, and 9 must agree. Sheesh, the narcissism!

Item 34- "Plaintiff would like to speak about the experience of being a grand juror, including expressing opinions about....." Boo hoo. Too bad. You can't. No $$ opportunities either. That's not what this is all about. This GJ thinks he or she should be "equal to" the prosecutor in their roles. Big mistake.

Item 35-Plaintiff wants to educate the public on the role and function of the GJ. Sorry GJ Doe-- that's not your role or responsibility here. Not your job at all.

36/ 37- GJ Doe wants to be a legislative activist, using GJ service as a platform for change. Nope. Sorry. Not allowed.
And the further comment in item 37 about depriving the accused of due process-- hello? In this case, the accused was not indicted!

38- A proposed joint resolution is just that-- a proposed joint resolution. This GJ is not a legislator. That is up to the MO legislature. This GJ seems to think his or her experience on this ONE case should override everything else.

39/ 40- Wants to talk the case over with his or her family an fears prosecution. Boo hoo. Not allowed by state law. Apparently this GJ wasn't disturbed about any of the other "hundreds" of matters during their service from May 2014 onward, only THIS case.

I'll look over the rest later on a break. But wow--the chutzpah of this grand juror! "I'm so important and critical to the discussion-- look at meeeeeee..." That's my first impression. An overinflated sense of importance, and a weak understanding of his or her role and the process. Feels exceptions should be made just for him/ her, because they are "special", and their experience must be somehow more valuable or valid than other GJ'rs. Wow. Just wow.

How fast can this lawsuit be tossed out, lol? Ridiculous!

 

[tlcya]

reading the doc now. Only into it as far as page four. Interesting wording. Much of what is being presented (complained of) seems watered down by the "from Plaintiff's perspective" which seems to me to remove some of the surety behind the allegations that follow those words.

From Plaintiff’s perspective, the presentation of evidence to the grand jury investigating
Wilson differed markedly and in significant ways from how evidence was presented in
the hundreds of matters presented to the grand jury earlier in its term.

From Plaintiff’s perspective, the State’s counsel to the grand jury investigating Wilson
differed markedly and in significant ways from the State’s counsel to the grand jury in
the hundreds of matters presented to the grand jury earlier in its term.

From Plaintiff’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the
victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury.

From Plaintiff’s perspective, the presentation of the law to which the grand jurors were to
apply the facts was made in a muddled and untimely manner compared to the
presentation of the law in other cases presented to the grand jury.

Never seen things alleged in that manner before. It is understood that all of this is "from Plaintiff's perspective", who else's?

Okay back to reading.

 

[greycoupon]

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.

The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was also a revolution. That's what just about all the protesters are talking about. A movement that changes how society views something and the laws that perpetuate that. Not overthrowing the government. This case wasn't beginning of the anti-brutality movement, that's been going on for many years. You are right that it was a flash point.

Given the absolute mess of the grand jury, I hope Doe wins the case.

 

[K_Z]

IMO, this whole document reads like a spoiled adolescent, with an overinflated sense of importance and entitlement, stomping their foot and having a tantrum. “I wanna do what I wanna do, and I don’t like the rules, so change them, now.”

This unfortunate, whiny individual has absolutely no idea, IMO, what it means to be part of a collective decision making body, nor how to appropriately and effectively go about influencing change at a legislative level. It’s a shame that this person didn’t pick that up somewhere along the line, and if they didn’t understand that as a GJ’r, then the attorneys should have explained it again (not help him/ her file a lawsuit, lol!). There is a real lack of education, and understanding of role and responsibility here, IMO.

There is absolutely nothing preventing this person for advocating for legislative change in the Grand Jury process. They simply cannot talk about THIS case, and their role on THIS GJ, nor the evidence or deliberations of THIS collective GJ body, while they advocate for change. And the process for legislative change is necessarily complex, lengthy, and involves a lot of dialogue and CONSENSUS. That is a good thing for EVERY citizen.

Unfortunately, our society has developed, in general, to the point that a whole lot of people are very selfish, and exhibit entitlement mentality in lots of different parts of their life and work. This is yet another example of that, IMO. “Me, me, me—it’s all about Meeee and what I want, right now.”

Parents have the responsibility to teach children, who go on to be adults, that there is a time to stand out as an individual and a leader, and a time and place to blend in with collective work and collective decision making. I don't think a lot of parents teach that to their children anymore. This lawsuit says a lot about Grand Juror Doe. I get the sense that this person doesn’t really understand the difference between those. He/ she erroneously thinks this is their “moment” to be a leader, when it was really their duty and their “moment” to be one voice of 12—a cog in the gear wheel. One voice of a collective decision. And he or she really doesn’t like being an anonymous cog in the wheel, clearly. It’s just a big whiny tantrum, IMO. (You can almost hear Grand Juror Doe stomping his or her foot, lol!)

Hopefully, this lawsuit goes nowhere. I hope it's dismissed quickly. I'm all for working on "change", the right way-- but this is the wrong way. IMO.

http://www.despair.com/worth.html (a hilarious site, BTW.)

"Worth: Just because you're necessary, doesn't mean you're important!"

 

[Curious Guy]

IMO, this whole document reads like a spoiled adolescent, with an overinflated sense of importance and entitlement, stomping their foot and having a tantrum. “I wanna do what I wanna do, and I don’t like the rules, so change them, now.”

This unfortunate, whiny individual has absolutely no idea, IMO, what it means to be part of a collective decision making body, nor how to appropriately and effectively go about influencing change at a legislative level. It’s a shame that this person didn’t pick that up somewhere along the line, and if they didn’t understand that as a GJ’r, then the attorneys should have explained it again (not help him/ her file a lawsuit, lol!). There is a real lack of education, and understanding of role and responsibility here, IMO.

There is absolutely nothing preventing this person for advocating for legislative change in the Grand Jury process. They simply cannot talk about THIS case, and their role on THIS GJ, nor the evidence or deliberations of THIS collective GJ body, while they advocate for change. And the process for legislative change is necessarily complex, lengthy, and involves a lot of dialogue and CONSENSUS. That is a good thing for EVERY citizen.

Unfortunately, our society has developed, in general, to the point that a whole lot of people are very selfish, and exhibit entitlement mentality in lots of different parts of their life and work. This is yet another example of that, IMO. “Me, me, me—it’s all about Meeee and what I want, right now.”

Parents have the responsibility to teach children, who go on to be adults, that there is a time to stand out as an individual and a leader, and a time and place to blend in with collective work and collective decision making. I don't think a lot of parents teach that to their children anymore. This lawsuit says a lot about Grand Juror Doe. I get the sense that this person doesn’t really understand the difference between those. He/ she erroneously thinks this is their “moment” to be a leader, when it was really their duty and their “moment” to be one voice of 12—a cog in the gear wheel. One voice of a collective decision. And he or she really doesn’t like being an anonymous cog in the wheel, clearly. It’s just a big whiny tantrum, IMO. (You can almost hear Grand Juror Doe stomping his or her foot, lol!)

Hopefully, this lawsuit goes nowhere. I hope it's dismissed quickly. I'm all for working on "change", the right way-- but this is the wrong way. IMO.

http://www.despair.com/worth.html (a hilarious site, BTW.)

"Worth: Just because you're necessary, doesn't mean you're important!"

Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[tlcya]

Here is where I think this argument loses much steam. It relies upon the argument that the Plaintiff is being "chilled" by Defendant. Kept from expressing political views. Mostly used in government or state jobs to protect those employees from fearing reprisal at work for having or expressing unpopular political views that differ from their bosses. At least that is the context in which I have seen this argument. In this case seems the argument is that the Plaintiff is being chilled from expressing political views because they are not allowed to speak about the grand jury deliberations and their "perspective" of that process in the Wilson deliberations. In this case a job is not on the line, rather prosecution may be.

My problem with this argument is that the Plaintiff is claiming the Defendant is preventing him/her from expressing/discussing the GJ Proceedings and cites "chilling" as what is being done to Plaintiff. In order to substantiate "chilling" one must show that the Defendant not only took actions which prevented one from expressing their political views but that the defendant took the actions complained of with the motivation and intention of stiffing one's expression of political views.

Thus, in order to demonstrate a First Amendment violation, a citizen plaintiff must provide evidence showing that "by his actions [the defendant] deterred or chilled [the plaintiff’s] political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the defendant’s] conduct." Id. (quoting Mendocino Env’l Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 14 F.3d 457, 459–60 (9th Cir.1994). A plaintiff need not prove, however,that "his speech was actually inhibited or suppressed."Mendocino Env’l Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.1999). See alsoAwabdy v. City of Adelanto,368 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2004).

In this case, the Defendant is simply upholding the existing statutes regarding the privacy of GJ process and deliberations. His motivation is to perform the assigned duties of his office and uphold the existing statutes. He has not suddenly started enforcing the statutes due to personal motivation to stifle this Plaintiff's views where before he did not.

From the complaint:

B. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 540.310, entitled “Cannot be compelled to disclose vote,”but which more broadly provides that “[n]o 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.”;

C. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 540.080, entitled “Oath of grand jurors,” which states that: “Grand jurors may be sworn in the following form: Do you solemnly swear you will diligently inquire and true presentment make, according to your charge, of all offenses against the laws of the state committed or triable in this county of which you have or can obtain legal evidence; the counsel of your state, your fellows and your own, you shall truly keep secret?


As to B: How does one express their views and their experience of the grand jury beyond what is allowed by this statute without also calling into question and speculation the experience, deliberations and opinions of one's fellow grand juror's, all of which you have vowed to keep secret as described in C?

It seems to me that the GJ is upset because he/she is unable to scream from the rooftops "hey world, It wasn't me, not my fault, I did not think there was no merit to the evidence presented in favor of charging that cop" and go on to make public appearances, maybe write a book etc etc.

This Grand Juror knew the terms of the office he/she accepted. I liken this to a medical provider wanting to release details of a famous patient's medical records, because well, HIPPA be damned, it's a famous person darn it and I know something the public wants to know and I have opinions about it! Doesn't matter doc, HIPPA is HIPPA - terms of privacy and sworn oaths of office are not fluid in that way.

Slippery Slope. I knew there would be repercussions from DA and the transparency of releasing the evidence put before the grand jury. What was not released was anything that would identify the jurors, their deliberations, their notes, their process during deliberation, discussion, who voted how, etc.

This juror IMO wants to undo that by screaming from rooftops "here's how I voted and what I thought about things". Which could then offer clues or invite speculation as to what jurors X Y and Z thought or voted.

So there's my take.

 

[Steft50]

My views on this are going to be unpopular but what the heck. My feeling is this GJ decision should be tossed and a new GJ convened with a special prosecutor from outside the area running it. I think the current prosecutor's has a strong bias in protecting police officers due to the majority of his family being in or involved in law enforcement in the area. I believe during the proceedings he broke the law by suborning perjury during testimony, and that he was stupid enough to publicly admit it. In my opinion this grand jury proceeding was a joke from the beginning and the prosecutor presented it in a manner to ensure the outcome would not lead to charges.

I can't help but wonder if an unbiased prosecutor presented this case without bias and with all honest witnesses would the outcome be the same? If it would have been the same, then why suborn perjury?

As for my views on the situation, Michael's actions were wrong, no doubt about that. I just don't think he deserved to be put to death with no
trial.

 

[bwt42]

My views on this are going to be unpopular but what the heck. My feeling is this GJ decision should be tossed and a new GJ convened with a special prosecutor from outside the area running it. I think the current prosecutor's has a strong bias in protecting police officers due to the majority of his family being in or involved in law enforcement in the area. I believe during the proceedings he broke the law by suborning perjury during testimony, and that he was stupid enough to publicly admit it. In my opinion this grand jury proceeding was a joke from the beginning and the prosecutor presented it in a manner to ensure the outcome would not lead to charges.

I can't help but wonder if an unbiased prosecutor presented this case without bias and with all honest witnesses would the outcome be the same? If it would have been the same, then why suborn perjury?

As for my views on the situation, Michael's actions were wrong, no doubt about that. I just don't think he deserved to be put to death with no
trial.

I think the prosecutor presented evidence for & against OW that he knew was not truthful. He left it up to the GJ to decide what to believe.

 

[al66pine]

....I can't help but wonder if an unbiased prosecutor presented this case without bias and with all honest witnesses would the outcome be the same? ....

bbm sbm

And if the asst prosecutors had decided before presenting the earlier LE interviews-w-witnesses-transcripts
which witnesses were 'honest,' some people would have raised Cain about the asst pros' prejudices.
Would have said they were trying to rig the system, throw the result, etc.

I've forgotten how many witnesses were questioned in person by G/J, and #of previous interview transcripts & MSM vids were presented.
Just for discussion say, 25 witnesses in person at G/J, and say, 2 interviews each by Le or MSM. 25 potentially diff versions, maybe 50 or 75.

What result would GJ have reached, if asst prosecutors had decided only 5 of those witnesses were 'honest.'
Perception by some (not all) of the public w/h bn that Pros. forced asst pros. to suppress evidence, to silence potential witnesses.

Imo, no matter how he handled it, Prosecutor was in a lose-lose-lose situation.
JM2cts.

 

[tlcya]

My views on this are going to be unpopular but what the heck. My feeling is this GJ decision should be tossed and a new GJ convened with a special prosecutor from outside the area running it. I think the current prosecutor's has a strong bias in protecting police officers due to the majority of his family being in or involved in law enforcement in the area. I believe during the proceedings he broke the law by suborning perjury during testimony, and that he was stupid enough to publicly admit it. In my opinion this grand jury proceeding was a joke from the beginning and the prosecutor presented it in a manner to ensure the outcome would not lead to charges.

I can't help but wonder if an unbiased prosecutor presented this case without bias and with all honest witnesses would the outcome be the same? If it would have been the same, then why suborn perjury?

As for my views on the situation, Michael's actions were wrong, no doubt about that. I just don't think he deserved to be put to death with no
trial.

I appreciate that our POVs differ and respect your willingness to voice what may be an unpopular one but am curious. about the BBM. How exactly does one decide who are the honest witnesses to present to the GJ and whose job would that be and if that was the process then wouldn't the person presenting only the witnesses they had decided were the honest ones be exhibiting a very clear bias by that very act?

 

[Steft50]

It seems some are stuck on a word I used so let me try and word it differently. You don't like that I said the prosecutor needs to put *honest* witnesses before the grand jury. So how about this, a prosecutor should not ever put a witness before the grand jury that he KNOWS is flat out lying, who he KNOWS in advance will flat out lie to the grand jury.

I find the comments about this prosecutor knowingly and deliberately putting liers before this grand jury to be ok with so many in this case, yet if a defense attorney were to do the same, the same people defending this prosecutor would be (and have asked for) their license to be removed or sanctions to be imposed. What a double standard.

 

[noZme]

Did you wish you had never even heard of Ferguson, MO?

 

[tlcya]

It seems some are stuck on a word I used so let me try and word it differently. You don't like that I said the prosecutor needs to put *honest* witnesses before the grand jury. So how about this, a prosecutor should not ever put a witness before the grand jury that he KNOWS is flat out lying, who he KNOWS in advance will flat out lie to the grand jury.

I find the comments about this prosecutor knowingly and deliberately putting liers before this grand jury to be ok with so many in this case, yet if a defense attorney were to do the same, the same people defending this prosecutor would be (and have asked for) their license to be removed or sanctions to be imposed. What a double standard.

Thank you for articulating your thoughts behind the use of the words honest witness in this situation. I follow your point. And I do agree that if this happened at trial I would be outraged, believe it or not no matter which side Pros or Def did it.

But this was not a trial. To me, the Grand Jury is more like a probable cause hearing but instead of being before a judge and argued by two opposing sides, each presenting evidence backing their stance, a grand jury hears all variety of evidence, no matter which stance it seems to support. In addition, a grand jury gets to demand other or additional evidence if they believe it is relevant to the case at hand.

I don't believe it was the prosecutor's job to determine who he believed was a liar and cull that one from the process. It was his job to present all alleged witnesses. Let them give their testimony and let the JURY decide who it believed.

At least that is my understanding of the process in place. Now if you disagree with the process in place that is fine and I can respect that, but to say the prosecutor was biased and did not properly follow the process IMO is not accurate. He threw it all at them and let THEM decide what was wheat and what was chaff because at the end of the day again just MOOO that is why Grand Juries exist. To wade through the evidence collected. Any and all of it. And decide if there is enough there to warrant an indictment.

 

[rob]

Yeah, the law says that the juror can not talk about what happened, or what was said or who said what, but they want to anyway. Some people don't like the outcome of the proceeding, so it should be tossed and done over. What is equality? Is everyone going to be able to do this now? Or just some people? This country has gone nuts. Or someone should get some nuts, and just say NO! You will follow the law.

 

[katydid23]

This is ONE person who did not agree with the final GJ vote. He now wants to provide the world with his personal point of view. The problem is, his personal view does not really matter, legally, because there were not three others that shared his view. So I think this should be 'shut down' before it gets out of control and starts a domino effect through out the justice system. JMO

 

[rob]

It seems some are stuck on a word I used so let me try and word it differently. You don't like that I said the prosecutor needs to put *honest* witnesses before the grand jury. So how about this, a prosecutor should not ever put a witness before the grand jury that he KNOWS is flat out lying, who he KNOWS in advance will flat out lie to the grand jury.

I find the comments about this prosecutor knowingly and deliberately putting liers before this grand jury to be ok with so many in this case, yet if a defense attorney were to do the same, the same people defending this prosecutor would be (and have asked for) their license to be removed or sanctions to be imposed. What a double standard.

So you seem to be assuming that the known liars are for the officer and against MB. What if it is the other way around? What if the known liars are for the MB side? Then they should not be allowed to testify? I'm pretty sure that ain't going over well. My understanding is that some of the citizens who claimed to have witnessed the encounter, were proven to be lying, yet quoted over and over in the media, and everything they say taken as gospel truth.

 

[Steft50]

My understanding of a Grand Jury sole responsibility is to evaluate the evidence a prosecutor has against a person to determine if there is enough evidence to file charges. My understanding is it's not the prosecutors job to put forth evidence during the grand jury that would normally be used by the defense, not the prosecution. There is a reason why it's not usual for the person the proceeding is about to testify before the grand jury although it does happen on occasion. There is also a reason why the old saying goes that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich-they are given evidence against a person, not evidence that favors the person. Again, this is my understanding of grand juries and how they work. I now wonder though, in the grand jury instructions were they told part of their job was to determine who was lying and who was telling the truth? Where they told that at least one witness who claimed to be there wasn't even in town the day this all happened?

 

[Steft50]

So you seem to be assuming that the known liars are for the officer and against MB. What if it is the other way around? What if the known liars are for the MB side? Then they should not be allowed to testify? I'm pretty sure that ain't going over well. My understanding is that some of the citizens who claimed to have witnessed the encounter, were proven to be lying, yet quoted over and over in the media, and everything they say taken as gospel truth.

I actually think there were probably liers who testified both ways. The one we do know for sure is the one the prosecutor admitted to which was someone who claimed to be there wasn't even in town that day. Then I have to ask myself why? Why would a prosecutor find it necessary to knowingly suborn perjury? That is what bugs me more than anything.