Post by andrealynn on Dec 19, 2014 17:00:08 GMT -5
I don't think it really needs to be said, but this man is a racist. Straight up, no question. The fact that he is so out about it, and the fact that he feels no need to even hide his racism is just... abhorrent.
And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.
NO WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING NOW WHY YOU DIDN'T PUT THOSE WITNESSES ON BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING LIARS WHO LIE AND YOU GAVE THEM AN OUTLET AND LEGITIMIZED THEIR FABRICATIONS BY PUTTING THEM OUT THERE TO THE GRAND JURY. YOU SAY THAT THEY WERE LYING. END OF STORY. FULL STOP.
Post by sparrowsong on Dec 19, 2014 17:07:45 GMT -5
I posted this same link in a different thread.
My question is he now says he knew her testimony was an impossible lie but allowed the jury to judge that for themselves. But the day he announced the decision wasn't he all about claiming that the witness who backed up Wilson's account the only consistent one where the other witnesses kept changing their stories. WTF?
And yet still probably nothing will come of this. Because everyone in positions of power in Missouri are apparently equally racist and are all protecting each other.
Post by miniroller on Dec 19, 2014 17:16:08 GMT -5
Tragic And the thing is- of course the jury members don't question whether or not the prosecution would present Known Liars as witnesses!! Because any honorable prosecution would never consider doing that. Certainly they didn't question the accounts. GAHHHHH!!!!!!!
Last time I checked, suborning perjury is a crime.
If this guy goes to prison because he let Darren Wilson off, I'd be ok with that.
ETA to clarify in case anyone thinks I'm saying that a result that involves Darren Wilson walking free is fair or happy. There's no substitution for a full and just trial on the merits. I do however think it would be amazing if this shithead got thrown in jail for the precedent that it would set. Fail to do your job and put on a kangaroo court, go directly to jail.
Post by mominatrix on Dec 19, 2014 17:41:51 GMT -5
wait one motherfucking minute.
witnesses before grand juries aren't cross examined. they're only there at the behest of the prosecution; defense lawyers aren't even allowed in. there's no opportunity for the grand jury to have any information about a witness' credibility (or LACK thereof) unless the prosecutor put that evidence before the jury.
so all this, "well, um, I knew she was lying, but I gave the Grand Jury the information so they could make decisions about her credibility" is full of bullshit.
Did he provide the newspaper article she copied for her testimony? Did he provide the information from FBI that she wasn't credible? Records of other times she had inserted herself, falsely, into criminal proceedings? Did he cross-examine her as to whether or not she was even there?
It's one thing to say that it's the jury's responsibility to assess credibility (which it is, in full on trials), but a grand jury proceeding isn't a trial, and the DA has 100% control over who testifies, and pretty much what they say. Their credibility isn't ordinarily an issue because they aren't subject to cross.
By putting somebody up before a grand jury who he KNEW was going to lie, he violated more ethical rules than I can say, and probably more than one criminal statute. He doesn't get out of it by claiming that he did it to... what? avoid being second-guessed later?
Post by NewOrleans on Dec 19, 2014 17:53:42 GMT -5
I can't imagine that this man is not going to be charged with misconduct. This is utterly bizarre, unprofessional, and NOT in line with any protocol-- all parts, from the doing of it to the talking about it.
And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.
NO WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING NOW WHY YOU DIDN'T PUT THOSE WITNESSES ON BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING LIARS WHO LIE AND YOU GAVE THEM AN OUTLET AND LEGITIMIZED THEIR FABRICATIONS BY PUTTING THEM OUT THERE TO THE GRAND JURY. YOU SAY THAT THEY WERE LYING. END OF STORY. FULL STOP.
I might be cynical but it sounds to me like that crazy Sandy lady wasn't his worry - did he not believe a lot of the witnesses, maybe especially the ones that had information that did not support Darren Wilson's account? CYA systemic-racist-justice-system style?
witnesses before grand juries aren't cross examined. they're only there at the behest of the prosecution; defense lawyers aren't even allowed in. there's no opportunity for the grand jury to have any information about a witness' credibility (or LACK thereof) unless the prosecutor put that evidence before the jury.
so all this, "well, um, I knew she was lying, but I gave the Grand Jury the information so they could make decisions about her credibility" is full of bullshit.
Did he provide the newspaper article she copied for her testimony? Did he provide the information from FBI that she wasn't credible? Records of other times she had inserted herself, falsely, into criminal proceedings? Did he cross-examine her as to whether or not she was even there?
It's one thing to say that it's the jury's responsibility to assess credibility (which it is, in full on trials), but a grand jury proceeding isn't a trial, and the DA has 100% control over who testifies, and pretty much what they say. Their credibility isn't ordinarily an issue because they aren't subject to cross.
By putting somebody up before a grand jury who he KNEW was going to lie, he violated more ethical rules than I can say, and probably more than one criminal statute. He doesn't get out of it by claiming that he did it to... what? avoid being second-guessed later?
Using my JD from the school of Law & Order SVU episode watching tells me that at the very least he should have asked the judge to go into chambers and disclose to the judge that he had reason to believe the witness was perjuring herself after which the judge could tell the grand jury to disregard her testimony. no?
Since you have a real JD I also like what you posted above so I quoted it too. :-)
NO WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING NOW WHY YOU DIDN'T PUT THOSE WITNESSES ON BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING LIARS WHO LIE AND YOU GAVE THEM AN OUTLET AND LEGITIMIZED THEIR FABRICATIONS BY PUTTING THEM OUT THERE TO THE GRAND JURY. YOU SAY THAT THEY WERE LYING. END OF STORY. FULL STOP.
I might be cynical but it sounds to me like that crazy Sandy lady wasn't his worry - did he not believe a lot of the witnesses, maybe especially the ones that had information that did not support Darren Wilson's account? CYA systemic-racist-justice-system style?
I didn't even think of that; he is clearly racist so it would be his MO. Either way it seems he clearly did everything in his power to not indict Darren Wilson. But it's totes cool because Brown was scary and resisting.
I genuinely don't understand how this just 'happened'…I don't understand how any person - especially a person of colour - can have any faith whatsoever in the judicial system.
I fail to understand how this man has a job. How many other cases has he royally f'ed up over the years.
Well for starters, the other five or so police shooting cases that he could not win an indictment on.
But yeah, if this shithead has no problem putting up liars to secure the outcome he wanted, how many (black) men are in prison because of his shit judgment?
Last time I checked, suborning perjury is a crime.
If this guy goes to prison because he let Darren Wilson off, I'd be ok with that.
ETA to clarify in case anyone thinks I'm saying that a result that involves Darren Wilson walking free is fair or happy. There's no substitution for a full and just trial on the merits. I do however think it would be amazing if this shithead got thrown in jail for the precedent that it would set. Fail to do your job and put on a kangaroo court, go directly to jail.
I'm not sure if the fact that it's a grand jury makes it different, but isn't there a rule of professional conduct in Missouri that says that you can't offer witness testimony that you know is false? And if you unknowingly let a witness lie on the stand, you have to correct it as soon as you find out?
witnesses before grand juries aren't cross examined. they're only there at the behest of the prosecution; defense lawyers aren't even allowed in. there's no opportunity for the grand jury to have any information about a witness' credibility (or LACK thereof) unless the prosecutor put that evidence before the jury.
so all this, "well, um, I knew she was lying, but I gave the Grand Jury the information so they could make decisions about her credibility" is full of bullshit.
Did he provide the newspaper article she copied for her testimony? Did he provide the information from FBI that she wasn't credible? Records of other times she had inserted herself, falsely, into criminal proceedings? Did he cross-examine her as to whether or not she was even there?
It's one thing to say that it's the jury's responsibility to assess credibility (which it is, in full on trials), but a grand jury proceeding isn't a trial, and the DA has 100% control over who testifies, and pretty much what they say. Their credibility isn't ordinarily an issue because they aren't subject to cross.
By putting somebody up before a grand jury who he KNEW was going to lie, he violated more ethical rules than I can say, and probably more than one criminal statute. He doesn't get out of it by claiming that he did it to... what? avoid being second-guessed later?
Using my JD from the school of Law & Order SVU episode watching tells me that at the very least he should have asked the judge to go into chambers and disclose to the judge that he had reason to believe the witness was perjuring herself after which the judge could tell the grand jury to disregard her testimony. no?
Since you have a real JD I also like what you posted above so I quoted it too. :-)
never practiced in MO, and never practiced criminal law, so take this with a grain of salt.
There aren't judges involved in Grand Jury proceedings. It's explicitly the prosecutor's ball-of-wax. My understanding is that the whole thing exists to basically "check" the indictment-handing-down process. Which is why we oft heard the comment that a DA could get an indictment on a Ham Sandwich.
Using my JD from the school of Law & Order SVU episode watching tells me that at the very least he should have asked the judge to go into chambers and disclose to the judge that he had reason to believe the witness was perjuring herself after which the judge could tell the grand jury to disregard her testimony. no?
Since you have a real JD I also like what you posted above so I quoted it too. :-)
never practiced in MO, and never practiced criminal law, so take this with a grain of salt.
There aren't judges involved in Grand Jury proceedings. It's explicitly the prosecutor's ball-of-wax. My understanding is that the whole thing exists to basically "check" the indictment-handing-down process. Which is why we oft heard the comment that a DA could get an indictment on a Ham Sandwich.
Post by cinnamoncox on Dec 20, 2014 8:47:02 GMT -5
So this idiot thinks if he didn't put lying witnesses on the stand people would be "talking about it"? Yeah, but maybe not in the same way we're talking about it now. What a dangerous imbecile.
So.... can we start a petition? Is there one already? Can we be the squeaky wheel to put some pressure on..... somebody? Who is above this guy? Somebody call the Supreme Court!
Yes, I forget which thread, but anodyne gave contact info for people to write. It may be in the witness 40 lied thread (one if them).
Post by jillboston on Dec 20, 2014 10:02:45 GMT -5
I loathe the pussy "argument" "welp - there was going to be criticism no matter what I did" The difference between this racist twat and the other witnesses is that they were actually there. Yes. their accounts differ as do all eyewitness accounts since the beginning of time. But to put a woman who had been proven by the FBI to have not been there at all on the stand twice in a grand jury setting is indefensible. Martha Stewart served 6 months in federal prison for lying to investigators - that was her only crime - she was never charged with insider trading. McElroy belongs in jail for perjury as does McCulloch for suborning perjury. At minimum he should be disbarred.
I heard this interview on the radio yesterday and was screaming in my car. This is just a small portion of the entire interview. He went on and on about another police shooting that didn't cause an outcry that happened about a month before DW killed MB. He said reporters contacted his office about other police shooting unarmed suspects and when he told them it was a black officer or white victim the media dropped it. Basically, the media and other local politicians caused all this for their own political gain.
The GJ is equivalent to a document drop. He gave them everything in the name of transparency knowing full well all it would do is confuse the hell out the GJ.
People who practice criminal law? What is the bar to putting something before a second grand jury if the first declines to indict? Is it all prosecutorial discretion or is there a requirement that you have evidence not available at the first? Would perjured testimony count?
I heard this interview on the radio yesterday and was screaming in my car. This is just a small portion of the entire interview. He went on and on about another police shooting that didn't cause an outcry that happened about a month before DW killed MB. He said reporters contacted his office about other police shooting unarmed suspects and when he told them it was a black officer or white victim the media dropped it. Basically, the media and other local politicians caused all this for their own political gain.
The GJ is equivalent to a document drop. He gave them everything in the name of transparency knowing full well all it would do is confuse the hell out the GJ.
I read his BS theory about the every witness thing. But it is clear now that he *knew* that she could not actually have been a witness because she was not there. That is different than letting every witness testify even if their accounts may be off - biased whatever. There were there and the different accounts can be weighed against one another. This person was not anywhere near the shooting and he knew that before he brought her to testify. Twice.
People who practice criminal law? What is the bar to putting something before a second grand jury if the first declines to indict? Is it all prosecutorial discretion or is there a requirement that you have evidence not available at the first? Would perjured testimony count?
Can someone tag @starlily?
I'm not sure because we use grand juries practically never, but I think it's all prosecutorial discretion.
Holy shit!! He needs to be disbarred immediately. I mean it is fucking lawyer 101 that you do not put witnesses on the stand that will knowingly be perjuring themselves. I also can't believe he even admitted to having this information but I guess the good thing is the truth is coming out putting the DA's office in a position that they will have to charge Wilson- well, in my opinion. Fucking unbelievable.
Post by anastasia517 on Dec 20, 2014 16:33:30 GMT -5
WTF. This guy is admitting that he is a racist asshole who is unwilling to indict cops, even if it takes using witnesses who commit perjury to get the result he wants!? And nothing is going to happen. RAGE.
I heard this interview on the radio yesterday and was screaming in my car. This is just a small portion of the entire interview. He went on and on about another police shooting that didn't cause an outcry that happened about a month before DW killed MB. He said reporters contacted his office about other police shooting unarmed suspects and when he told them it was a black officer or white victim the media dropped it. Basically, the media and other local politicians caused all this for their own political gain.
The GJ is equivalent to a document drop. He gave them everything in the name of transparency knowing full well all it would do is confuse the hell out the GJ.
I read his BS theory about the every witness thing. But it is clear now that he *knew* that she could not actually have been a witness because she was not there. That is different than letting every witness testify even if their accounts may be off - biased whatever. There were there and the different accounts can be weighed against one another. This person was not anywhere near the shooting and he knew that before he brought her to testify. Twice.
He had other witnesses testify that he knew were lying too. I think he just wanted to throw so much bullshit at the jury that they threw up their hands.
Prosecutors also played the grand jury a 10-minute police interview with a man who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. Then they played a phone call in which the man admitted that he actually had not seen the incident. Why waste their time? But they did, over and over again. Anyone who wanted to testify could.
He got witness 22 to recant on the stand and admit she wasn't there. He tried with witness 40, saying she couldn't have been there and perhaps she dreamed it, or perhaps her bipolar condition played a role but she said no. So he did lead the jury to disregard her as well.
One article I read said that in NYC, they typically don't hold back any evidence when it involves a cop either - they don't want to be accused of partiality in what they consider legitimate testimony. I guess it depends on the trial locale and the circumstances.