MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

[krimekat]

Witness Statements and the media

You may discuss the case with anyone you wish. The choice is yours, but it is not always a good idea. Be sure you know to whom you are talking when you discuss the case. If a defendant approaches you and you find this upsetting, please tell the Antitrust Division attorney immediately. While you may discuss the case with the media if you wish, we encourage you not to do so since you are a potential witness in a criminal case and the rights of the government and the defendant to a fair trial could be jeopardized by pre-trial publicity.

In the interest of ensuring a fair trial, after you have testified in court, you should not discuss with other witnesses what was said during your testimony until after the case is over. Thus, please do not ask other witnesses about their testimony or volunteer information about your own.

More at link:


http://www.justice.gov/atr/victim/vwhandbook.htm


My question is all attorney's know this so why would they permit their clients to give a public statement to the media when they know it will interfere with the investigation? It's not as if the witnesses are defendants.

IMHO only I believe attys are trying to interfere with the investigation by trying this "case" in a peanut gallery instead of the standard protocol. Not sure if DJ was legally represented when he gave his 1st media interview or even 2nd media interview -- I think it was Monday (11 Aug) before Bosley Jr came out as DJs lawyer

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm surprised there is such little attention given to the the detail that both the witness Paige or whatever her name is (sorry) and DJ said that MB was falling to his knees as he was raising his hands and getting shot again.

So how can he be falling to his knees and "charging" at the same time?

Someone who is about to charge is going to be standing up. How can you feel threat from someone who is slumping to his knees?

Two witnesses said that same thing and they said it right after the killing.

We are still waiting to hear what OW says, and at this point, frankly, he's had weeks to come up with a story that takes into account what the other witnesses say as well as what videos show and what the new audio tape shows. So talk about being able to tailor your story to the evidence. I'm not saying that's what will happen, I'm sayiing the other witnesses spoke up right after the murder, so they didn't have time to change their stories or tailor their stories.

Having said that, we the general public don't matter. What matters to OW is going to be just the 12 people sitting on his jury, if it gets there. So I think it's actually smart of him NOT to talk.

JMO.

Did you see Furman on Kelly file last night? He gave very good info on how an Officer is processed after a police shooting..

Gramcracker gave an quick recap...

Originally Posted by gramcracker
Fuhrman: if authenticated, the audio both corroborates and impeaches various witnesses. OW has to account for every shot fired. it all must mesh. audio provides number and pacing. you don't just fire until weapon is empty. time needed for assessment: is target advancing? is stopping/killing not complete? pacing integral to OW's statements. can be argued either way. OW then was isolated at station, tape-recorded (and filmed? missed that). his numbers, trajectories, must match CS evidence. this audio could corroborate OW's account

It's interesting to note that relative to someone like DJ, OWs official statement was done ASAP, probably that night. He has less chance of tailoring his statements after the fact IMO than the witnesses to the event.

Her page doesn't seem to put up clips from all segments

 

[TheDuchess]

The witness stories are corroborating now, but the early witness reports conflicted each other and then themselves in later interviews. I can't find a single witness who has given multiple interviews/statements whose account of the shooting has remained the same from the beginning. JMO

And here is the problem....after the police have taken your statement, anything you say AFTER that statement to the media, online, to anyone else, can be used to impeach your testimony. Say what you will about her, but have a look at Gloria Allred. When she represents a client, she is out there on the media circuit yakking it up about the case. But you know what? Her clients don't say a WORD. Pretty smart, if you ask me.

The first thing any defense attorney is going to do when faced with witnesses for the prosecution would be to try to impeach the witness. This allows any testimony of the witness to either be thrown out, or disregarded by the jury, because they have proven themselves to be unreliable. The first thing they go after, especially in cases like this, are media interviews. They will have a team going over every single word that comes out of your mouth and compare it to the official statements given to police. If any of your statements can be shown to be contradictory, you are done, finished, thank you..no further questions.

Why anyone who truly cares about trying to help the judicial process in any way, whether for prosecution or defense, would go on one of these shows running their mouths is beyond me. Honestly, just being there to me (as a potential juror) that you are looking for your 15 minutes of fame. As a juror, or as an attorney, I would love hearing from a witness that has been completely uncorrupted.

 

[DebinGA]

And several of the witnesses to the shooting that have been interviewed on tv are shown in videos talking to others outside, several even with each other and MB's mom, while detectives and le forensic team are still on scene.

 

[reedus23]

Link please.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

BBM - Reasonableness required.

 

[Tawny]

MB had just slammed a door into him and punched him in the face. I'd assume he reasonably believed MB was a danger to those around him.

 

[reedus23]

They probably didn't see it blowing up because they couldn't imagine that something so justifiable would blow up and that people would willfully ignore such obvious truth. One generally doesn't think about going into defensive mode when he/she wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with.

Huh? So justifiable? Obvious truth? You're mind is clearly set and that's fine. I don't know what the answers are yet. We have heard next to zero from the cop's side. We have witness interviews that while picked apart are generally consistent. A prosecuting attorney who apparently doesn't see things so clear cut. It may very well turn out that way, but no way is anything "so justifiable" and certainly not an "obvious truth".

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

BBM - Reasonableness required.

respectfully snipped by me

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested.

 

[bettybaby00]

MB had just slammed a door into him and punched him in the face. I'd assume he reasonably believed MB was a danger to those around him.

This. And a struggle for the gun....has to rank as one of, if not the highest form of threat an officer faces.

 

[buffetoflies]

Stupid question, but why are ya'll referring to Darrin Wilson as OW?

 

[DebinGA]

Stupid question, but why are ya'll referring to Darrin Wilson as OW?

For me, same reason as writing MB and DJ, i.e. time and space saver. OW=Officer Wilson

 

[LambChop]

Stupid question, but why are ya'll referring to Darrin Wilson as OW?

Short for Officer Wilson.

 

[aa9511]

RSBM

To be fair, just because he hasn't gone to the media, doesn't mean he hasn't given a statement. I'm sure he HAS given his statement, however, the FPD has decided not to release a whole bunch of information while the investigation is ongoing.

I think as the public, being so used to everything being online immediately, we feel almost disgruntled that we aren't being "let in" on the investigation. We feel like we are entitled to every piece of evidence and every statement anyone has made, and that's just not true. It's an ongoing investigation. It's best to keep it under wraps so as not to sway the public and possibly cloud the judgment of any possible future jurors. JMO

"not to sway the public and possibly cloud the judgment of any possible future jurors"????

What about releasing the video of the store robbery? Surely that will sway and cloud the judgment!!

Goes BOTH ways. The store robbery video was released by the POLICE.

There are a lot of posters on this thread who repeatedly mention the robbery to explain MB's state of mind and just take it as a given that he MUST have assaulted the police officer because of what he did in THAT VIDEO.

YES it's an ONGOING INVESTIGATION. That means you don't release any information about the INVESTIGATION as a whole. Not release damaging information for one party and not a thing for the other.

 

[Tawny]

"not to sway the public and possibly cloud the judgment of any possible future jurors"????

What about releasing the video of the store robbery? Surely that will sway and cloud the judgment!!

Goes BOTH ways. The store robbery video was released by the POLICE.

There are a lot of posters on this thread who repeatedly mention the robbery to explain MB's state of mind and just take it as a given that he MUST have assaulted the police officer because of what he did in THAT VIDEO.

YES it's an ONGOING INVESTIGATION. That means you don't release any information about the INVESTIGATION as a whole. Not release damaging information for one party and not a thing for the other.

lol Fair enough.

 

[reedus23]

I have questions for anyone here who believes that it is very likely that this is an unjustified shooting. I would really and truly like honest answers, if at all possible, to help me understand the reasoning. Giving all of the facts that we know at this time, would you feel any differently about the situation if:
1.) OW was black?
2.) DB was white?
3.) OW is shown to have been greatly injured in the "scuffle," i.e., concussion, loss of consciousness, fractured eye socket
4.) OW had been shot inside the vehicle during the "scuffle."
5.) It is shown that DB was under the influence of some kind of substance that produces violence

I know these are all very hypothetical questions, but just trying to isolate the reasoning for the outrage. It seems to me that none of us would be having this conversation if OW wasn't white and DB wasn't black. In other words, there would be no other explanation for the shooting other than racism - that OW is a racist cop that hates black people enough to shoot one dead in the street like some kind of an animal.

In my opinion, the most important physical attribute of MB that played the largest part in OW's mind throughout the entire incident was NOT his race, but much more his physical SIZE. My guess is that OW wouldn't have any reason to assess MB's race during this incident, because his most immediate concern was that MB was literally twice the size of OW.

I don't believe this is an unjustified shooting. I don't know yet. My contention with some is those who have already ruled out the possibility it was not justified when we know so little. Having said that, my answers.

1. No
2. No - Regarding these 2, I have said from the outset that if the Brown's truly wanted justice for their son and simply that justice, they made a mistake bringing in Crump and Sharpton. They should have brought in an expert/activist on police conduct/use of deadly force, not some who tends to focus the issues on race. In fact, I have said they should have taken race completely out of the picture by bringing in such an expert/activist who is white.
3. Hard to answer that one.
4. Hard to answer that one. But as to 3 and 4, I think it's relevant to discuss, but the bigger question to me is whether MB had surrendered himself to arrest or did he continue to pose an immediate threat such that deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest. I could see a circumstance in which the nature of the injury would take less action on the other end by MB to constitute that immediate threat.
5. Absolutely a factor. Again, it's more about MB's actions than what was in his system, but if he was on something like bath salts, it would be easier to believe a story of him charging head long into a hail of bullets.

No outrage coming from me, but I get what you're saying. My guess is if it weren't for those shouting about racism, no we wouldn't be talking about it, but maybe we should be.

As to OW's mind and whether he's racist...I have no clue either way. Don't know the guy and don't know of any circumstances involving him.

 

[bettybaby00]

And here is the problem....after the police have taken your statement, anything you say AFTER that statement to the media, online, to anyone else, can be used to impeach your testimony. Say what you will about her, but have a look at Gloria Allred. When she represents a client, she is out there on the media circuit yakking it up about the case. But you know what? Her clients don't say a WORD. Pretty smart, if you ask me.

The first thing any defense attorney is going to do when faced with witnesses for the prosecution would be to try to impeach the witness. This allows any testimony of the witness to either be thrown out, or disregarded by the jury, because they have proven themselves to be unreliable. The first thing they go after, especially in cases like this, are media interviews. They will have a team going over every single word that comes out of your mouth and compare it to the official statements given to police. If any of your statements can be shown to be contradictory, you are done, finished, thank you..no further questions.

Why anyone who truly cares about trying to help the judicial process in any way, whether for prosecution or defense, would go on one of these shows running their mouths is beyond me. Honestly, just being there to me (as a potential juror) that you are looking for your 15 minutes of fame. As a juror, or as an attorney, I would love hearing from a witness that has been completely uncorrupted.

Do we know What day DJ give his official statement? I know in the first couple of days he gave many interviews, and IMO his scenario contained quite a few fantastical statements. Can these interviews be used as a means of discrediting/impeaching his version of events?

 

[Kimster]

Short for Officer Wilson.

:secret: Don't worry buffteofflies, I didn't know either!

 

[Isabelle]

Just had a thought this a.m., while reading through thread. There are many people who just do not have appropriate social skills and/or don't know what body language is acceptable and what might be dangerous. They use what they have learned from their environment and really don't know what is appropriate/safe.

In one of the posts I read that MB may have put one of his hands in his pocket when standing near or approaching OW. This body language would be very very wrong in this type of situation. Another individual might turn and start to walk away when called on by LE and this too would be inappropriate behavior. But, do these behaviors have a bad connotation in and of themselves? Do they occur and lead to bad results that could be prevented if those persons knew what was inappropriate/dangerous.

Maybe LE could offer insight to young people who are still in school so they could develop appropriate interpersonal skills to use when having to interact with LE.

My work in home health in urban, suburban and rural areas showed me some things I never would have imagined! I never faulted anyone as I believed anyone could be truly ignorant, and by this I mean they do not know any better and only use what they know and have learned. If I wanted to change this I have to do something to educate those persons, and I did. Most of the time results were great and change was made. Do we need something like this in society, in our educational system? Thanks for letting me ramble. Now off to send email to a friend who is a psychology professor in NYC.

 

[TheDuchess]

Do we know What day DJ give his official statement? I know in the first couple of days he gave many interviews, and IMO his scenario contained quite a few fantastical statements. Can these interviews be used as a means of discrediting/impeaching his version of events?

Absopostivelutely! Any conflicting statements given by a witness before, during and after the official statement can be used to impeach their credibility. He would need to be able to provide a clear and concise reason why his version of events conflicted and hope the jurors will "understand." I am not saying that conflicting statements are an automatic impeachment - just that they assist an attorney to prove the unreliability of a witness.

 

[TorisMom003]

"not to sway the public and possibly cloud the judgment of any possible future jurors"????

What about releasing the video of the store robbery? Surely that will sway and cloud the judgment!!

Goes BOTH ways. The store robbery video was released by the POLICE.

There are a lot of posters on this thread who repeatedly mention the robbery to explain MB's state of mind and just take it as a given that he MUST have assaulted the police officer because of what he did in THAT VIDEO.

YES it's an ONGOING INVESTIGATION. That means you don't release any information about the INVESTIGATION as a whole. Not release damaging information for one party and not a thing for the other.

The release of the video was explained during a press conference. If there was video of the shooting and the media filed a request to have that video released, then it would either be released immediately or it would be heard by a judge to have the video released. The release of the video was not part of a smear campaign against Brown. And truth be told, if Brown had behaved in the way that other law abiding citizens do instead of the way criminals do, then there would be nothing that goes against Brown in the video.

MOO