|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 25, 2014 23:36:06 GMT -5
While this may not be a topic of interest to most folks, I found all of the records, evidence and Grand Jury transcripts in the Micheal Brown case at this site: apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.htmlAs judges, or potential judges, the records are most interesting and enlightening. Evaluate the evidence on your own and reach a decision based solely on the evidence submitted to to the Grand Jury. Will take a considerable amount of time. Judges make decisions on not what the media reports but actual testimony and evidence admitted into the record. I'm not making a statement about about race relations, but merely looking at the evidence. If you were are the prosecutors. would be willing to case the case to a jury?
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 26, 2014 1:00:55 GMT -5
Wow! Could spend weeks going thru all of the testimony and exhibits presented to the Grand Jury.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 26, 2014 1:32:31 GMT -5
And none of us have time to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 8:04:25 GMT -5
Still, a fascinating discussion that I would love to have with some members of the legal community. The non-lawyers who want to talk to me about the subject can't seem to get around the distinction between grand jury and jury trial and the role of the D.A.
Myself, I am extremely frustrated by the behavior of the D.A. Clearly, he did not want an indictment, and so he did not get one. He seems to have seen his role as defending the accused instead of the other way around. Can anyone out there with more criminal law experience than me think of an instance in which the potential defendant was invited into the grand jury room and allowed to give testimony? How could the jury possibly be unbiased and impartial after listening to a police officer tell his side of the story? Certainly, he was not subject to cross-examination, was he?
My two cents, if you kill an unarmed civilian, you have a reasonable expectation that you are going to have to sit in a witness box and answer some hard questions. I'm all for police officers defending themselves in a very difficult and dangerous job, but the officer in question did fire his weapon 13 times at, and kill, an unarmed 18 year old. We need to have a discussion about whether that was an appropriate response. And, if the officer in question honestly believes that his training required that particular outcome, then something is wrong with the training manual.
Discuss!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 26, 2014 8:29:47 GMT -5
They heard a large number of people tell widely varying versions of the events, some consistent with key parts of the officer's testimony, some not. I have never practiced criminal law outside juvenile court, but I think there are circumstances in which the accused can request, if not demand, to testify. I don't know what happened in this case on that issue. They weighed it all and made a decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 9:30:35 GMT -5
In this case the officer testified before the jury for about four hours. www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0#All in all the jury heard over 70 hours of conflicting testimony, without a recommendation from the DA. How is any group of non-lawyers supposed to evaluate that much and come to a reasonable conclusion without both prosecution and defense counsel putting that mass of data in context? Which brings me back around to the lack of cross-examination in the process. Without stating the obvious, the common law justice system is based upon each party to the issue having representatives advocating for them in front of an impartial jury of peers. In between the arguments of the prosecutor and defense counsel is the truth, supposedly. So what happens when the prosecutor switches sides and advocates for the accused? Who in that room was advocating for an indictment? Apparently, no one. That's disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Nov 26, 2014 9:57:29 GMT -5
This is really not the right forum for this discussion and given the controversy surrounding the case any discussion is doomed to degenerate into pointless "what I would have done" discussions. I will say that just because the Grand Jurors are lay persons, it does not make them dullards. The legal standard of probable cause is easily understood. The specifics of the potential charges are obviously specific to the laws of Missouri. From the prosecutor's perspective he is ethically barred from seeking an indictment for a case he does not believe has merit, which most of the time translates into not seeking indictments for cases they believe they cannot win (though that is not really the same thing).
Presenting the case to the Grand Jury to for them to make the decision rather than requesting indictment does seem appropriate under the circumstances. Based on what has been released in the media it does not sound like the grand jurors were confused or hasty in their decision making. The only way to judge the prosecutor's actions it to go through the released transcripts and evidence and ask yourself if you could present that in Court and reasonably expect to obtain a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Nov 26, 2014 10:11:01 GMT -5
I agree with saaao. I give the jurors credit for doing their job. Having a litigation background, I have been amazed with the awareness and savvy of our jurors in spite of the shenanigans of the attorneys. It seems like Judges have more trouble identifying and agreeing about things like substantial vs. preponderance... JMHO, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Nov 26, 2014 13:40:04 GMT -5
For those without time to peruse the material, here is a summary of the GJ testimony of Officer Wilson. Of course it's necessarily self-serving and but a small part of the evidence heard by the GJ, so I've no opinion on whether it's truthful. But there's nothing like specificity to put to rest the off-repeated opinion that a cop who shoots an unarmed kid is automatically indictable. Perhaps he is, perhaps not. Platitudes (apparently informed these days by a jaded view of race relations) don't substitute for gatherings facts. If the GJ heard facts supporting an indictment, they weren't in this testimony. And, given the testimony, there'd have to reliable, contradicting evidence to support indictment. Just my two cents as a part-time prosecutor who doesn't do murder or civil rights cases. www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/26/officer-wilson-had-a-powerful-case-for-self-defense-under-missouri-law/ Here's food for thought. I generally won't take a case unless I believe the guy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I also believe that I can prove it. This is not the law which only requires PC to bring a case to a petit jury. As a general rule, do folks here believe the public is better served by this approach or by a more liberal charging practice that would result in bringing more questionable cases to a jury?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 14:37:47 GMT -5
I am very busy being an ALJ now, but in my prior life I was very busy as a criminal defense slash civil rights lawyer. In the south no less, so business was always boomin'.
Several observations that you are free to accept, disregard, or debunk:
-- This is the type of case that is almost impossible to look at, especially if you are late to the party, or are getting yourinfo mainly from either Fox News or MSNBC, without bringing your own hangups to it. -- If you don't think you have hangups, you obviously have not watched the Unconscious Bias VOD yet. -- Any prosecutor that cannot make the probable cause hearing go the way they want 99% of the time has questionable abilities. -- Getting criminal charges to stick on a police officer in this type situation is very, very difficult. Civil is something else, of course, but even then it is tough. Official v. Individual capacity, qualified immunity, Iqbal, Twombley, etc., etc. -- Sorry this happened. Our country is suffering for it.
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on Nov 26, 2014 14:41:28 GMT -5
For those without time to peruse the material, here is a summary of the GJ testimony of Officer Wilson. Of course it's necessarily self-serving and but a small part of the evidence heard by the GJ, so I've no opinion on whether it's truthful. But there's nothing like specificity to put to rest the off-repeated opinion that a cop who shoots an unarmed kid is automatically indictable. Perhaps he is, perhaps not. Platitudes (apparently informed these days by a jaded view of race relations) don't substitute for gatherings facts. If the GJ heard facts supporting an indictment, they weren't in this testimony. And, given the testimony, there'd have to reliable, contradicting evidence to support indictment. Just my two cents as a part-time prosecutor who doesn't do murder or civil rights cases. www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/26/officer-wilson-had-a-powerful-case-for-self-defense-under-missouri-law/ Here's food for thought. I generally won't take a case unless I believe the guy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I also believe that I can prove it. This is not the law which only requires PC to bring a case to a petit jury. As a general rule, do folks here believe the public is better served by this approach or by a more liberal charging practice that would result in bringing more questionable cases to a jury? ok ... I agree with saaao that this isn't the proper forum to discuss such a divisive issue. I have been holding back, but as an attorney, I feel compelled to put in my 2 cents (I'm sure there are others). First, the standard for a grand jury to issue an indictment is "probable cause" that a crime was committed, not whether there is proof sufficient to obtain a conviction or whether a conviction can be obtained. That is the function of a petit jury after a trial on the merits where evidence is produced and witnesses are subject to cross examination. The prosecutor's job before a grand jury is to produce evidence sufficient to establish probable cause so as to move the matter to the next level. It is not the prosecutor's job to use the grand jury to determine ultimate guilt or innocence. Second, no defense attorney would ever permit his client, a target of a grand jury , to testify before that grand jury in the manner this officer did. That this officer gave the grand jury four hours of testimony tells you all you need to know about this legal proceeding. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 30, 2014 23:42:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 30, 2014 23:58:42 GMT -5
-- Getting criminal charges to stick on a police officer in this type situation is very, very difficult. Civil is something else, of course, but even then it is tough. Official v. Individual capacity, qualified immunity, Iqbal, Twombley, etc., etc. Prosecuting police officers is a terribly difficult decision and disconcerting for the prosecutor as the two offices work hand in hand on some many other cases. As a deputy prosecutor many years ago, I had to present a case to a jury where an on-duty police officer went to his estranged wife's house and threatened her with his pistol. The jury found him guilty. On the way out, he threatened me and the deputy sheriff escorting out told him to shut up and pushed him to the door. I didn't press charges as I felt he already ruined his career and didn't want to generate another case. He was already going to lose his job as a police officer and he could no longer carry weapons based upon his conviction. I just hoped other officers would not react negatively and tank cases because we had prosecuted one of their own.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Dec 1, 2014 2:54:16 GMT -5
Really, how nice that you have so much spare time on your hands. I agree with those who say this really isn't the place for this discussion. I'm sure there is some other forum for it out there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Dec 1, 2014 8:30:31 GMT -5
Wrong forum WHO ME? as your posts have no close relationship to anything related to becoming an ALJ for the Federal Government. An ALJ will not be making any such decisions in his/her official capacity on issues similar as to what happened in Ferguson, MO. Sorry, but observer53 is absolutely correct above in her statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 8:40:16 GMT -5
I really don't understand the animosity. What is inappropriate about lawyers and judges discussing the function of the prosecutor and grand jury on a forum called 'ALJdiscussion'? If someone is not interested in the topic, you certainly do not have to open the folder and read. It's not required. And, if you are not interested in the topic, or don't have time for it, why...oh, why...would you take the time to read and then comment on that fact?
Thinking more broadly: We, as Board members, should discuss the fact that there is a portion of the Board that only wants to talk about the latest, or the next, cert. I get that. But, there is also a portion of the Board who wants to have discussion among the ALJs on other topics. I am getting pretty tired of every time I try to have a conversation, someone decides to pop up and tell me either: 1. Shut up and sit down, 2. If you don't like some aspect of your job, …quit, or 3. Take your opinion somewhere else; this is not the appropriate forum.
So what do you say, Board Leadership? Can I get a ruling? If this Board is limited to ONLY conversation about ALJ hiring, that probably should be stated clearly.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Dec 1, 2014 8:45:12 GMT -5
I don't know about that, many of our claimant's have prison history, many have PTSD from their time in prison, and don't forget that if someone is injured in a felony that they are convicted for and then apply for disability based on those injuries, if they are Title XVI they can draw benefits, but if Title II, they can't draw benefits....
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 1, 2014 8:52:21 GMT -5
If this Board is limited to ONLY conversation about ALJ hiring, that probably should be stated clearly. I think MPD and others are merely pointing out that this forum is for ALJ hiring related topics: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/1/threadThe purpose of the board is stated as such on the first page of the welcome section as a forum for "ALJ hiring." I think once we start going down the bunny trail of hot topics in the news that have no relation to ALJ hiring, there is more potential for flaming and such. Although some of the topics are "interesting" they do not seem to be related to ALJ hiring. I do not think anyone meant any direct attack on you at all.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Dec 1, 2014 9:07:18 GMT -5
I really don't understand the animosity. What is inappropriate about lawyers and judges discussing the function of the prosecutor and grand jury on a forum called 'ALJdiscussion'? If someone is not interested in the topic, you certainly do not have to open the folder and read. It's not required. And, if you are not interested in the topic, or don't have time for it, why...oh, why...would you take the time to read and then comment on that fact? Thinking more broadly: We, as Board members, should discuss the fact that there is a portion of the Board that only wants to talk about the latest, or the next, cert. I get that. But, there is also a portion of the Board who wants to have discussion among the ALJs on other topics. I am getting pretty tired of every time I try to have a conversation, someone decides to pop up and tell me either: 1. Shut up and sit down, 2. If you don't like some aspect of your job, …quit, or 3. Take your opinion somewhere else; this is not the appropriate forum. So what do you say, Board Leadership? Can I get a ruling? If this Board is limited to ONLY conversation about ALJ hiring, that probably should be stated clearly. Robg, You have brought up very interesting topics for discussion, and if I recall correctly, they mostly have to do with the practice of SSA/disability law and ALJ topics of interest. Don't stop! Ferguson is such a politically charged topic that any discussion has the potential to go off the rails so quickly that some folks may be afraid to discuss - intelligently or not. Lawyers are humans too (despite all the stupid lawyer jokes out there). We know we are a passionate bunch, especially when we discuss areas of the law that directly impact every-day people, i.e., domestic relations, child custody, special education, disability, criminal, civil rights, etc. Any of us who have practiced in any area where we have sat face to face with the "average Joe" who is trying to work through the system and you are the only one who is helping them get through it can completely understand what I am referring to. We get mad and work hard to right the wrongs. None of us are in a position to armchair quarterback the Ferguson Grand Jury, and commenting on it in an anonymous ALJ blog is not really going to be a true discourse worthy of pithy discussion amongst friends - is it? As a Captain I used to work for said to me 'stay in your own swim lane'. Good advice, I think.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Dec 1, 2014 9:08:16 GMT -5
I really don't understand the animosity. What is inappropriate about lawyers and judges discussing the function of the prosecutor and grand jury on a forum called 'ALJdiscussion'? If someone is not interested in the topic, you certainly do not have to open the folder and read. It's not required. And, if you are not interested in the topic, or don't have time for it, why...oh, why...would you take the time to read and then comment on that fact? Thinking more broadly: We, as Board members, should discuss the fact that there is a portion of the Board that only wants to talk about the latest, or the next, cert. I get that. But, there is also a portion of the Board who wants to have discussion among the ALJs on other topics. I am getting pretty tired of every time I try to have a conversation, someone decides to pop up and tell me either: 1. Shut up and sit down, 2. If you don't like some aspect of your job, …quit, or 3. Take your opinion somewhere else; this is not the appropriate forum. So what do you say, Board Leadership? Can I get a ruling? If this Board is limited to ONLY conversation about ALJ hiring, that probably should be stated clearly. ROBG there was no animosity on my part at all. I was only stating the obvious regarding the ALJ Discussion Board's purpose as set out by ALJD when it was created. Yes, occasionally we get off topic and it is fine, but this topic does have the real possibility of leading to "flaming" or anger of difference between members. There are likely very strong feelings on both sides and it is best when the topic has nothing to do with ALJ hiring as ALJD set up the Board for as its purpose, that we leave that topic off the radar for discussion. It is a very slippery slope we set if there are no barriers to discussion here. Do we discuss each and every U.S. Supreme Court decision, even if no relevance to ALJ hiring or ALJ purposes? There has to be some barriers to what is proper to discuss on this Board. While, nobody is trying to be the "thought police" here ROBG, what some of us are saying is we need to be careful about such possible "inflammatory subjects" leading to some real problems for Board members and the Board. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming and topics.
|
|