Hey, you know how the Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri, completely exonerated Darren Wilson for all time and declared his killing of Michael Brown perfectly valid? Rachel Maddow had a surprising little fact for us Tuesday: The grand jury had been given instructions about the Missouri law governing when it’s legal for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect — but that law had been invalidated by a 1985 Supreme Court decision (Maddow is building on an excellent piece on this last week by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell).
For most of the grand jury’s term, they were operating under instructions from an assistant district attorney that their decisions should be governed by a 1979 law — the one that was found unconstitutional in 1985 — that said it was legal for police to shoot a fleeing suspect. And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.
The assistant DA response? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
Don’t worry your pretty little grand jury heads about what the law actually says. Just hurry up and determine that Officer Wilson did nothing wrong. And clearly current constitutional law does not apply when a defenseless cop is being viciously charged by a “demon” teenager.
Prepare to be disgusted. Had similarly inaccurate legal guidance been given to a real trial jury, this stupidity would never stand. As it is, get ready for it to be dismissed as sour grapes from the liberal media, because as we all know, Darren Wilson was proven completely innocent, by a jury and everything.
I had heard about this. Many states had/have laws about cops shooting suspects, but SCOTUS overturned the jist of Missouri's law. But the law is still on the books. And my response is, "does it matter?" If a similar law was deemed unconstitutional, it's an unenforceable law, whether or not it's been actually removed!
WTAF? I'll say what I said yesterday again, they are so obviously fucked up there, that it seems some entity (I'm looking at the justice deparatment) should be able to step in and take shit over for a while.
There was an article posted yesterday that said there is one judge that can step in to appoint a special prosecutor and re-bring the case to the grand jury.
Post by meshaliuknits on Dec 3, 2014 12:33:49 GMT -5
And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.
The assistant DA response? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
I keep coming back to this part and my vision blurs in rage.
And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.
The assistant DA response? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
I keep coming back to this part and my vision blurs in rage.
I have to say although this quote is in total WTAF territory, on the other end I find myself impressed with the juror who was aware of the SCOTUS history. I Would not have been
And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.
The assistant DA response? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
I keep coming back to this part and my vision blurs in rage.
Post by sparrowsong on Dec 3, 2014 13:21:15 GMT -5
I wish the whole world is like this board. I leave here and try out reality, and talking about my anger, and at best I get "but they found him innocent." At worst I get "Ferguson? Where's that?"
I quit life if this doesn't get a new jury and oh to trial. I hope the other prosecutor isn't as racist as the rest of Missouri seems to be. But my hope is pretty small. :/
I wish the whole world is like this board. I leave here and try out reality, and talking about my anger, and at best I get "but they found him innocent." At worst I get "Ferguson? Where's that?"
I quit life if this doesn't get a new jury and oh to trial. I hope the other prosecutor isn't as racist as the rest of Missouri seems to be. But my hope is pretty small. :/
I keep hearing "but they found him innocent" too and I say nope. A trial proves guilt or innocence, he didn't even get to that part yet and then people think I am some sort of crazy.
How have you been responding to the "but all the evidence says..." type refrain?
I wish the whole world is like this board. I leave here and try out reality, and talking about my anger, and at best I get "but they found him innocent." At worst I get "Ferguson? Where's that?"
I quit life if this doesn't get a new jury and oh to trial. I hope the other prosecutor isn't as racist as the rest of Missouri seems to be. But my hope is pretty small. :/
I keep hearing "but they found him innocent" too and I say nope. A trial proves guilt or innocence, he didn't even get to that part yet and then people think I am some sort of crazy.
How have you been responding to the "but all the evidence says..." type refrain?
Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards
The evidence was not tried in court. The other side wasn't allowed to present whether or not the evidence could hold up to scrutiny.
WTAF? I'll say what I said yesterday again, they are so obviously fucked up there, that it seems some entity (I'm looking at the justice deparatment) should be able to step in and take shit over for a while.
I have been looking into this for another reason - local politics. From my understanding the DOJ can look into how civil rights are governed at the state level by performing inquiries into the conduct of local attorneys/prosecutors and police. They do not have direct jurisdiction to fire/hire people and rarely can actually bring a criminal case in that arena or bring much legal action unless there is overwhelming evidence or illegal activity. If it's general, systemic civil rights violations, the DOJ comes into memos-of-understanding or agreements with the offending departments that often outline the actions they will take in the future to avoid the systemic civil liberty violation.
In our local case, systemic civil rights violations as determined by the DOJ were identified (wrt how sexual assault victim investigations/interviews were taken and used in court primarily). However, the DOJ technically couldn't MAKE the police or local attorney's office do anything without getting an agreement with them. I believe each state's attorney general CAN actually impose new standards and procedures on the local entities, so I think the DOJ will ultimately be responsible for looking at the systemic issues in both the police and prosecutors at the local level in Ferguson/St. Louis area and the state attorney general would then try to be the mediator to get an agreement to procedural changes at the local level that would satisfy both DOJ and the local police/prosecutors.
I'm happy if someone who works in this world of DOJ/prosecutors can clear this up more, but that is my general view. Plus, that takes years - I bet we see a DOJ report in about 8 months and an agreement with the Ferguson police/prosecutors about a year after that.
I'm also sad that a CEPer didn't find this error before the media did. Remember when arborgold tweeted Wendy Davis during her filibuster with info? We need to get back to that level!!