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

[rob]

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?

I've never been on a grand jury, but have been on a trial jury, and in the deliberations, everyone in the room would say who they did not believe the testimoney of. I don't remember anyone telling us to determine who was lying or telling the truth.
Is it the courts duty to tell jurors that their may be liars?
Usually, in my experience, when someone is lying, the story don't add up.

All IMO only

 

[tlcya]

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?

My understanding of the process is different than the BBM. I need to do pull some research I haven't looked at in a month or so to recall MO's stance on this but I view the process like this but also that the reverse is true. So that no matter who habitual liar in example below may be helpful to, prosecution or defense, it is the Grand Jury's decision how much credibility to assign that testimony and decide if, in light of all the evidence put before them, a crime was committed.

Majority View: Exculpatory Evidence is a Must

In most states, prosecutors can’t present half-truths to grand juries. If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. That doesn’t mean, however, that they have to offer every piece of evidence that’s helpful to the accused or that might be used at trial by the defense.
For example, evidence that a prosecution witness is a habitual liar would be helpful to the defendant at trial, but it doesn’t directly negate the commission of the crime. Therefore, a prosecutor wouldn’t be required to present it to a grand jury. And even in states where prosecutors have to present evidence of innocence, they don’t have to go looking for it. In the example above, they would have to present Jane’s alibi only if they were aware of it—they wouldn’t have to try to find out whether she had one.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...vidence-helps-the-defendant-grand-juries.html

 

[reedus23]

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.

Meh. I get what they're saying. It's presented as if the GJ as a whole didn't favor an indictment, when in reality 8 could have and there could have been 4 hold outs. I do think if it was simply presented more clearly, as in at least 4 grand jurors voted not to indict, it gives it a more proper context than saying the grand jury voted not to indict.

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!

Again, meh. I don't think this grand juror is saying that. And actually, he/she might actually be in the majority, not dissenting with the majority. We don't know and shouldn't know probably.

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.

Well, I would make the money while I can. Want to charge me and fine me $1,000? Ok. In fact, here, I'll pay double and y'all can use the extra money as you see fit. I think this grand juror sees some things that were done differently in this case than were done in the countless other cases and my guess, pure guess, is they believe that needs to be fixed.

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.

Why do you have a problem with someone wanting to educate others? If anything, the need for education is one glaring need that arose out of this mess, whether it's about the legal process or countless other issues.

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!

Again, if it's that important, they'll do it regardless. I give the grand juror credit for doing it through the legal system. If it were me, and it were that important to me, I'd just do it. If I get a misdemeanor conviction in the process, so be it. If I am fined $1,000 in the process, so be it. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind that the way this case was presented by the prosecuting attorney's office and the way the witnesses were questioned was a complete travesty. There needs to be changes to the grand jury process, particularly in situations where potential conflicts arise between investigating agencies/prosecutors and the accused. And frankly, it's for the benefit of everyone. McCulloch has to have a solid relationship with LE. I want him to. I don't want a rift between him and LE. If he had vigorously pursued this case, a rift would have been created. Take that onus off of him and give it to an independent prosecutor whose only job is to deal with officer involved cases.

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.

I don't get he/she wants to override everything else. I do get that he/she feels he/she has an experience and insight that might be helpful to those that are drafting changes.

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.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think they already haven't. And why should there be a boo hoo about it? Maybe that's why the law needs to be changed and why he/she is seeking to be active in that change. I'm not saying it should be or needs to be but you saying boo hoo is exactly why he/she seeks the change. They recognize and respect the fact that it's not the law as you say and that's why they're doing it through the legal process. You do know that the laws at one time did allow for people to own slaves right? Sometimes laws do need to be changed.

I would agree they do seem to be more disturbed by how this one case was handled. They certainly intimate that it was handled differently than any of the other hundreds of cases they handled. If so, why? And why should it be allowed to happen?

 

[reedus23]

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.



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.

My take from that is to say it differently would be to do the same thing he/she complains of with McCulloch...giving the appearance that the voice of one is the voice of all. Or in the grand juries case, the voice of potentially as few as 4 is the voice of all.

 

[reedus23]

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!"

So if things were done improperly, you don't want to know about it? You'd rather ensure that the same improprieties can be perpetuated in the future by gagging someone's voice? Do you not believe that a lot of these problems and issues are arising because of the way McCulloch handled it in the first place? I am beginning to wonder if McCulloch can even challenge this due to his own unclean hands.

 

[liljim]

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?

you mean exactly what police and DA's do every day? and exactly what happens in almost all grand jury proceedings all over the country every day?

yes.

 

[liljim]

So if things were done improperly, you don't want to know about it? You'd rather ensure that the same improprieties can be perpetuated in the future by gagging someone's voice? Do you not believe that a lot of these problems and issues are arising because of the way McCulloch handled it in the first place? I am beginning to wonder if McCulloch can even challenge this due to his own unclean hands.

all things considered i think the way this DA presented the case was ok, because although he did present witnesses that he knew were almost certainly being dishonest, he also challenged those witnesses on the problems he found with their testimony in front of the grand jury, pretty aggressively for the most egregious ones.

i have no doubt that he did not believe that charges should be filed, and that if he felt charges should be filed he would have presented the case just like he presents other cases all the time - much much differently.

but here he was in a tough spot, if he doesnt put those witnesses in front of the grand jury then people scream "cover up!", so he put EVERY witness up there AND he challenged their testimony (as he would normally not do).

all of the above in no way reflects my opinion on the major topic of the thread, i have not looked at the argument being made yet regarding that.

 

[reedus23]

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.

It won't happen, but I think it should. I also wouldn't be surprised if some sort of disciplinary action is taken against McCulloch.

RULE 4-3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

His office knowingly made a misstatement of the law in violation of the first part and knowingly put on false testimony. And yes, they knew full well that the statutes that the GJ had for 99% of the time were inaccurate. These attorneys are smart, deal with these statutes regularly and are fully aware that the statutes provided are not the law that is actually given to jurors in the instructions.

Not only was the manner in which this case was presented problematic, but I began to wonder if McCulloch didn't somehow get his own office into potential problems with the federal investigation, right along side of FPD and County PD. I don't even know if the reach of a federal investigation can reach a prosecutor's office.

 

[reedus23]

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.

That is a classic defense attorney maneuver. Throw so much crap out there that no one can make heads or tails of it, which will ultimately lead to an acquittal if at the trial stage.

 

[reedus23]

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.

I hear what you're saying and won't necessarily address that, but I always have had a question that is somewhat related. Why in the world would McCulloch's office put on a witness who admitted prior to her testimony that her statements to LE were fabricated. Why play those false statements and then put on the witness just to have the witness say that the statements were false.

 

[reedus23]

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.

An thus the reason it is even more damaging putting on known false testimony before a grand jury. There is no "other side" there to point this out.

 

[reedus23]

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.

And if the federal court agrees with him/her, he/she will still be following the law. I suppose if the federal court agrees with the grand juror you will just as adamantly support him/her in following the law and discussing the proceedings? I give the grand juror points for doing it through the legal system. I honestly am not sure I would have. I might have just spoken out.

 

[reedus23]

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

I think you mean there weren't 8 others that agreed with him/her. There could have been as many as 7 others that agreed with him/her.

At this point, for all we know, this grand juror voted not to indict as well but sees other flaws or problems in the system. They may not take issue with the outcome but with the process that led to the outcome. Frankly, that is my biggest concern as well. Not so much the outcome. I can live with a no indictment. No big deal. But the system is flawed and it's the system, not this one outcome, that affects a multitude of other cases.

 

[reedus23]

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 think there were known liars from both sides put on. Hell, the one my previous post referenced had given statements that were pro-MB but she stated they were lies prior to testifying. They still saw fit to call her as a witness and play her statements for some unknown reason.

 

[Elley Mae]

I think you mean there weren't 8 others that agreed with him/her. There could have been as many as 7 others that agreed with him/her.

At this point, for all we know, this grand juror voted not to indict as well but sees other flaws or problems in the system. They may not take issue with the outcome but with the process that led to the outcome. Frankly, that is my biggest concern as well. Not so much the outcome. I can live with a no indictment. No big deal. But the system is flawed and it's the system, not this one outcome, that affects a multitude of other cases.

IIRC Out of the 12 jurors 9 had to agree, so if 1 was of a different opinion then all that was needed was 3 more to make 4, four from 12 is 8, eight is not enough, it must be 9 so only 3 could have been of a different opinion. So this person is one of three or two or is walking the plank alone. I'm thinking they are walking the plank, jmo idk.

 

[reedus23]

all things considered i think the way this DA presented the case was ok, because although he did present witnesses that he knew were almost certainly being dishonest, he also challenged those witnesses on the problems he found with their testimony in front of the grand jury, pretty aggressively for the most egregious ones.

i have no doubt that he did not believe that charges should be filed, and that if he felt charges should be filed he would have presented the case just like he presents other cases all the time - much much differently.

but here he was in a tough spot, if he doesnt put those witnesses in front of the grand jury then people scream "cover up!", so he put EVERY witness up there AND he challenged their testimony (as he would normally not do).

all of the above in no way reflects my opinion on the major topic of the thread, i have not looked at the argument being made yet regarding that.

I have major problems with how his office presented this case. While there are also instance where I have problems with what he presented, those pale in comparison to how they presented it. Certain witnesses were literally impeached by the prosecutors while others they helped to "clarify" their statements. Something as simple as how they opened the presentation. Lawyers choose their words very carefully, and from the very outset, it was described as the Michael Brown case or shooting. It was not referenced as the case against Darren Wilson. That tenor was set early on and built upon with nearly every single witness that was presented. The outcome was preordained before the first witness was called.

I do get that McCulloch was in an untenable situation. I don't think there was any chance in hell he would have ever gotten a conviction even if there was an indictment and if you don't believe there is enough to actually win at trial, what function does it serve doing so?

 

[tlcya]

My take from that is to say it differently would be to do the same thing he/she complains of with McCulloch...giving the appearance that the voice of one is the voice of all. Or in the grand juries case, the voice of potentially as few as 4 is the voice of all.

possibly. I was thinking it was more akin to the :cow: s :moo: s and IMOs we are bound to use here. A way of accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing without the pesky need for it to be a substantiated fact. Tomato tom ah toe I suppose.

 

[reedus23]

IIRC Out of the 12 jurors 9 had to agree, so if 1 was of a different opinion then all that was needed was 3 more to make 4, four from 12 is 8, eight is not enough, it must be 9 so only 3 could have been of a different opinion. So this person is one of three or two or is walking the plank alone. I'm thinking they are walking the plank, jmo idk.

No. 9 were needed to issue an indictment. 8 people could have voted to indict. 7 could have agreed with this particular grand juror. Obviously, it's possible that none voted to indict as well, but that's not my point. It could be that only 4 voted not to indict and they walked that plank alone and that is sufficient to prevent an indictment from being handed down.

 

[reedus23]

possibly. I was thinking it was more akin to the :cow: s :moo: s and IMOs we are bound to use here. A way of accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing without the pesky need for it to be a substantiated fact. Tomato tom ah toe I suppose.

I'm sure there is some of that going on as well. To me, it read no different than plaintiffs always using the phrase, based upon Plaintiff's knowledge and belief. That is seen all the time here in Missouri. Or based upon the information and knowledge available to Plaintiff. All just a way to turn a 4 word sentence into a 255 word sentence. lol

 

[tlcya]

An thus the reason it is even more damaging putting on known false testimony before a grand jury. There is no "other side" there to point this out.

I hear what you are saying. But I truly believe that there needed to be every effort made to give the appearance of no sides period in terms of this specific case going before the GJ.

I just honestly feel that no matter what, this prosecutor was going to be wrong. Literally no matter what. Don't take it to GJ, he is part of the problem.

Do take it to them but don't let the liars in to testify, then it becomes who are the liars and as we have seen on these boards opinions vary greatly.

IMO there were more liars from either stance than truth tellers, so then it would have been - well why is he keeping this one or that one I have seen on the news from testifying. Which would have been followed by demands to hear from those liars, again all JMO. And on and on it goes.

There was no way that the entire world was going to see the actions of LE, protesters, GJ, Prosecutor, and so forth as proper or agree with the action taken and decisions made. This case has quite literally divided a nation, so no matter what, lots of someones somewhere would be screaming injustice.

I can guarantee that had charges been filed against the officer by the state I would be in the streets protesting and screaming injustice right now.