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

[Minette]

ticya, I was going to post 'psych!' but I couldn't remember if it was spelled that way, or 'sike' or whatever.

 

[reedus23]

You really shouldn't put words in my mouth. The fact that a large man assaulted a store clerk during a robbery and proceeded to assault a LEO resulting in his own death. Those inconvenient facts.

My apologies. I don't think they've ignored that by apparently making this request to the Judge. What resulted in his death was one human being pulling the trigger of his gun and firing multiple shots into his body. Those aren't inconvenient at all. They are what they are.

So as not to put words in your mouth, I am still confused then. Can you point to me where in their request to the Judge they specifically ignore the fact that MB was involved in a robbery or are ignoring the apparent assault on DW?

 

[Curious Guy]

My apologies. I don't think they've ignored that by apparently making this request to the Judge. What resulted in his death was one human being pulling the trigger of his gun and firing multiple shots into his body. Those aren't inconvenient at all. They are what they are.

So as not to put words in your mouth, I am still confused then. Can you point to me where in their request to the Judge they specifically ignore the fact that MB was involved in a robbery or are ignoring the apparent assault on DW?

The entire premise of this request is that the process was "unfair" . Therefore one can reasonably assume they are not satisfied with the decision of the Grand Jury. Again my assumption, and I could be mistaken, is the NAACP thinks this was a bad shoot. I submit that it was a justifiable shoot based on the facts.

Having said that I realize you feel differently and seeing as I get baited and reported constantly in these threads I will gracefully bow out of this one.

Have a great evening

 

[reedus23]

I think if there hadn't been such an immediate outcry with political 'push' behind it based on facts that were later proven untrue--'gentle giant,' 'shot with his hands up begging for mercy,' 'shot in the back,' etc. there would not even have been a grand jury. I think the prosecution bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of suppressing those eyewitnesses who testified to the 'hands up, shot in the back' story so that there wouldn't have been even worse rioting/burning/looting. In retrospect, it would have been better (IMO) to treat this case like any other in which someone assaults a police officer and gets shot as a result, but with the Justice Department swooping in and lending legitimacy to the notion that this was a racially based incident that was never going to happen. IMO, of course.

I think the whole gentle giant mantra was regurgitated by DW supporters more than MB supporters. Regardless, I understand what you're saying about pressures and that's why I said it would take cajones but he still should have done what he felt was right if he didn't think it should go to a GJ. Like I said, no matter how hard Nixon or others came down on him, he would never lose an election in St. Louis County because of that. I think the prosecution bent over backwards to neutralize those with credibility that claimed his hands were up. That is the reason you put on a witness who readily admitted her statements were lies...before she ever testified. Surely, if she's making it up all the MB camp is making it up.

The Justice Department is another issue. There is not a single doubt in my mind that they were needed. Maybe not insofar as the specific shooting of MB by DW goes. But in the much larger picture, not a single doubt in my mind. Some of those changes are being made already and others are yet to come. But I'd agree...I've seen nothing credible to suggest that the shooting itself was racially motivated. Plenty of rumors and speculation, but nothing I'd consider credible at this point.

 

[reedus23]

The entire premise of this request is that the process was "unfair" . Therefore one can reasonably assume they are not satisfied with the decision of the Grand Jury. Again my assumption, and I could be mistaken, is the NAACP thinks this was a bad shoot. I submit that it was a justifiable shoot based on the facts.

Having said that I realize you feel differently and seeing as I get baited and reported constantly in these threads I will gracefully bow out of this one.

Have a great evening

I'm honestly not trying to bait so I will also gracefully bow out after responding as well. You're probably right. They probably believe, based on reading all of the transcripts, that it was a bad shoot. You and many others reach just the opposite conclusion after reading the exact same transcripts. Just because you, and frankly the grand jurors, heard numerous accounts of hands up doesn't mean that the grand jurors just ignored those facts. I would like to think they gave those facts careful consideration and then gave them the weight they felt appropriate. Likewise, I'm sure the NAACP isn't just ignoring the facts of the robbery and the apparent assault. I am sure they too are giving those facts careful consideration and then giving them that weight that they feel they deserve.

 

[Snoods]

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.

Thank you for this, I was hoping someone would bring up this point before I finished the thread. Many people who testified with favorable testimony towards Michael Brown were flat out lying. So should the prosecutor not have allowed them to testify either? Imagine the uproar!

 

[K_Z]

I think if there hadn't been such an immediate outcry with political 'push' behind it based on facts that were later proven untrue--'gentle giant,' 'shot with his hands up begging for mercy,' 'shot in the back,' etc. there would not even have been a grand jury. I think the prosecution bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of suppressing those eyewitnesses who testified to the 'hands up, shot in the back' story so that there wouldn't have been even worse rioting/burning/looting. In retrospect, it would have been better (IMO) to treat this case like any other in which someone assaults a police officer and gets shot as a result, but with the Justice Department swooping in and lending legitimacy to the notion that this was a racially based incident that was never going to happen. IMO, of course.

Thank you, Minette. Well stated, and I completely agree.

And on another note related to the lawsuit, I keep pondering the meat and substance of the complaint. GJ'r Doe wants to be released from his/ her oath of silence/ gag order. GJ'r Doe served on this GJ from May 2014, until after the verdict in November. I find it very disingenuous that this GJ Doe had no issues or concerns about taking that oath, or serving as a GJ'r, in accordance with state law, until AFTER this case concluded. GJ Doe does not mention a single other case in the lawsuit that occurred during his/ her service. This juror should not have served at all, IMO, and should have done everything in his/ her power to get off the GJ before they had a single case. The very filing of this lawsuit confirms that, IMO. I can't take this person at all seriously because of this flaw I perceive in their character and integrity. This is a poke at the prosecutor, a chance to whine publicly, and an attempt to lay open what the GJ talked about and voted in their deliberations, IMO-- it really has little to nothing to do with freedom of speech or rights.

There is only ONE condition where this kind of lawsuit should be filed, IMO, and that is if somehow the actual, final binding group decision of the GJ was lied about, or misrepresented. For example, if the GJ voted to indict, and the prosecutor announced that the GJ DID NOT indict, then a break of silence is justified. Or if the prosecutor told the GJ "vote this way, or else", or something that egregious. Just because this hypocritical GJ'r Doe doesn't like the state law, presumably because the majority did not agree with him/ her, is not a valid reason to file a whiny "protest" lawsuit after the fact, IMO.

I think it's going to be dismissed pretty quickly.

 

[K_Z]

Here is where I think this argument loses much steam. It relies upon the argument that the Plaintiff is being "chilled" by Defendant. Kept from expressing political views. Mostly used in government or state jobs to protect those employees from fearing reprisal at work for having or expressing unpopular political views that differ from their bosses. At least that is the context in which I have seen this argument. In this case seems the argument is that the Plaintiff is being chilled from expressing political views because they are not allowed to speak about the grand jury deliberations and their "perspective" of that process in the Wilson deliberations. In this case a job is not on the line, rather prosecution may be.

My problem with this argument is that the Plaintiff is claiming the Defendant is preventing him/her from expressing/discussing the GJ Proceedings and cites "chilling" as what is being done to Plaintiff. In order to substantiate "chilling" one must show that the Defendant not only took actions which prevented one from expressing their political views but that the defendant took the actions complained of with the motivation and intention of stiffing one's expression of political views.

Thus, in order to demonstrate a First Amendment violation, a citizen plaintiff must provide evidence showing that "by his actions [the defendant] deterred or chilled [the plaintiff’s] political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the defendant’s] conduct." Id. (quoting Mendocino Env’l Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 14 F.3d 457, 459–60 (9th Cir.1994). A plaintiff need not prove, however,that "his speech was actually inhibited or suppressed."Mendocino Env’l Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.1999). See alsoAwabdy v. City of Adelanto,368 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2004).

In this case, the Defendant is simply upholding the existing statutes regarding the privacy of GJ process and deliberations. His motivation is to perform the assigned duties of his office and uphold the existing statutes. He has not suddenly started enforcing the statutes due to personal motivation to stifle this Plaintiff's views where before he did not.

From the complaint:

B. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 540.310, entitled “Cannot be compelled to disclose vote,”but which more broadly provides that “[n]o member of a grand jury shall be obliged or allowed to testify or declare in what manner he or any other member of the grand jury voted on any question before them, or what opinions were expressed by any juror in relation to any such question.”;

C. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 540.080, entitled “Oath of grand jurors,” which states that: “Grand jurors may be sworn in the following form: Do you solemnly swear you will diligently inquire and true presentment make, according to your charge, of all offenses against the laws of the state committed or triable in this county of which you have or can obtain legal evidence; the counsel of your state, your fellows and your own, you shall truly keep secret?


As to B: How does one express their views and their experience of the grand jury beyond what is allowed by this statute without also calling into question and speculation the experience, deliberations and opinions of one's fellow grand juror's, all of which you have vowed to keep secret as described in C?

It seems to me that the GJ is upset because he/she is unable to scream from the rooftops "hey world, It wasn't me, not my fault, I did not think there was no merit to the evidence presented in favor of charging that cop" and go on to make public appearances, maybe write a book etc etc.

This Grand Juror knew the terms of the office he/she accepted. I liken this to a medical provider wanting to release details of a famous patient's medical records, because well, HIPPA be damned, it's a famous person darn it and I know something the public wants to know and I have opinions about it! Doesn't matter doc, HIPPA is HIPPA - terms of privacy and sworn oaths of office are not fluid in that way.

Slippery Slope. I knew there would be repercussions from DA and the transparency of releasing the evidence put before the grand jury. What was not released was anything that would identify the jurors, their deliberations, their notes, their process during deliberation, discussion, who voted how, etc.

This juror IMO wants to undo that by screaming from rooftops "here's how I voted and what I thought about things". Which could then offer clues or invite speculation as to what jurors X Y and Z thought or voted.

So there's my take.

I meant to comment on this post earlier. This is an excellent analysis, IMO, and I want to thank you, tlcya, for researching and thinking it thru. Great post, and very well expressed, thank you!

 

[K_Z]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...over-handling-of-michael-brown-case-continues

A federal court, where Monday’s suit was filed, does have the authority to lift the gag order, says Peter Joy, professor of law and director of the Criminal Justice Clinic at Washington University in St. Louis. But, he says, “It’s a high bar to get an order to do that. You have to demonstrate that your constitutional rights would be irreparably harmed” if not allowed to speak​.

If the court did allow the juror to speak without punishment, it would be very unusual.

“Most courts look with disfavor on these sorts of motions,” Sullivan says. “But this particular complaint presents a compelling ground for the judge to allow the juror to speak.”

However, Joy says, there are reasons not to waive the secrecy requirements, particularly as the other jurors believed the conversations they were having during the proceedings would remain secret.“There are those interests as well,” Joy says.

Regardless of how the judge chooses to act, it will likely to be the first response to the actions taken this week. If the disciplinary board decides to investigate the prosecuting attorneys, that process could take four or five years, according Christi ​​Griffin, founder of Ethics Project, who led the effort to submit the disciplinary complaint.

While the judge who received the NAACP request for a new grand jury could easily not act on the letter, new grand juries are at times convened in certain circumstances – particularly when new evidence comes to the forefront.

In this case, there is no new evidence, but “what has shown up is that that grand jury was looking at the wrong legal standard,” says Candace McCoy, a professor of criminal justice at the City University of New York’s John Jay College. “They can reconvene because the jurors were looking at the wrong law.”

Bold by me for emphasis.

 

[branwynbreeze]

Due to doc drop, since it's public, can't Doe state his/her views without disclosing GJ details? Granted, w/o official OK, Doe won't be able to write a book or do talk show circuit, become a cult hero, ect.

Can someone tell me if GJers were asked or ordered to remain on seated panel? If they were asked, Doe knew how it all works prior.

This quote:

Since the grand jury’s decision was revealed, state Rep. Karla May, a St. Louis Democrat, has called for an investigation of McCulloch, who mentioned in a radio interview some witnesses lied to the grand jury. McCulloch said one women had claimed to have seen the shooting but "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/naacp-calls-...g-multiple-concerns-november-decision-1775386

Not calling witness or calling then slapping perjury charge might have incited an already excitable crowd. McColloch's opinion perhaps, others may have felt differently. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quite frankly, I do not see anything that could help with current dysfunction running rampant by a judgement in Doe's favor. Doe's request is selfish, I don't wanna kind of thing.

 

[branwynbreeze]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...over-handling-of-michael-brown-case-continues




From link above:
Grand Juror Doe’s perspective can and should help inform a way forward here in Missouri,” said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri, in a statement. “The ACLU will fight to allow this important voice to be heard by the public and lawmakers so that we can begin the healing process that can only result from fact-based reforms.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...case-continues

 

[K_Z]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...over-handling-of-michael-brown-case-continues

From link above:
Grand Juror Doe’s perspective can and should help inform a way forward here in Missouri,” said Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri, in a statement. “The ACLU will fight to allow this important voice to be heard by the public and lawmakers so that we can begin the healing process that can only result from fact-based reforms.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...case-continues

McCulloch's office has not released any official statements yet. Earlier today, they said they had not been "officially" served the suit. I'd expect in the next day or so, they will have something to say in response.

The ACLU is a party to Grand Juror Doe's complaint. They are speaking on his/ her behalf in the meantime, and so are voicing their opinions as to what is best or advantageous for them. They currently have the media advantage. (IOW, they filed the complaint, so they have the advantage of the media's attention until the defendants respond.)

 

[katydid23]

The purpose of this suit is probably an attempt to dissolve the Grand Jury system as we now know it. They want a 'special' prosecutor, with no connections to the local PD, to take over any future PD involved shooting cases.

I foresee a political nightmare ensuing if that happens. There will be a political witch hunt, and 'off with the heads' of any cops undergoing that process in the future.

The police reforms that Ferguson are asking for already happened here after our LA riots. We got the civilian review boards, dash cams, diversity in the academy, federal over-seers, layers of new regulations. And the way I see it, from knowing many LAPD, there was an unintended consequence.

In my opinion, entire inner city neighborhoods have been given over to the gangs. LAPD does not feel it is possible to 'work' certain areas safely. Since they no longer felt supported in their proactive type of policing, they just pulled way back. Basically, you are on your own if you venture into certain parts of the hood. The cops do not want to get shot by cruising through hardcore gang territory, NOR do they want the blowback that comes if they shoot in self defense. So LAPD keeps about 80% of the greater LA area well served. If you can get through to 911 that is.

 

[reedus23]

Thank you for this, I was hoping someone would bring up this point before I finished the thread. Many people who testified with favorable testimony towards Michael Brown were flat out lying. So should the prosecutor not have allowed them to testify either? Imagine the uproar!

If flat out lying...absolutely should not put them on. For instance, one witness even stated she lied to the cops and the FBI in her statements before ever being called to the stand. Why in the world would McCulloch's office EVER call such a witness. I bet they have NEVER done that in their careers. So there is one MB witness who was lying who should have never, ever even been remotely considered as a witness before the grand jury.

 

[reedus23]

The purpose of this suit is probably an attempt to dissolve the Grand Jury system as we now know it. They want a 'special' prosecutor, with no connections to the local PD, to take over any future PD involved shooting cases.

I foresee a political nightmare ensuing if that happens. There will be a political witch hunt, and 'off with the heads' of any cops undergoing that process in the future.

The police reforms that Ferguson are asking for already happened here after our LA riots. We got the civilian review boards, dash cams, diversity in the academy, federal over-seers, layers of new regulations. And the way I see it, from knowing many LAPD, there was an unintended consequence.

In my opinion, entire inner city neighborhoods have been given over to the gangs. LAPD does not feel it is possible to 'work' certain areas safely. Since they no longer felt supported in their proactive type of policing, they just pulled way back. Basically, you are on your own if you venture into certain parts of the hood. The cops do not want to get shot by cruising through hardcore gang territory, NOR do they want the blowback that comes if they shoot in self defense. So LAPD keeps about 80% of the greater LA area well served. If you can get through to 911 that is.

I don't think there are any easy answers and regardless of the answer, not everyone is going to be happy. There are going to be problems with nearly every solution. All I know is that the current course isn't a good one, on either side.

What are the concerns about a special prosecutor handling officer involved shootings katy? I'm truly not trying to bait. I'm trying to understand the concerns from the LE's perspective and I respect your opinion. Are they concerned that a special prosecutor will start prosecuting cops when such prosecutions aren't supported by the evidence? Like there will be witch hunts for lack of a better term. I'm trying to see the down side other than $$$$.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think there are any easy answers and regardless of the answer, not everyone is going to be happy. There are going to be problems with nearly every solution. All I know is that the current course isn't a good one, on either side.

What are the concerns about a special prosecutor handling officer involved shootings katy? I'm truly not trying to bait. I'm trying to understand the concerns from the LE's perspective and I respect your opinion. Are they concerned that a special prosecutor will start prosecuting cops when such prosecutions aren't supported by the evidence? Like there will be witch hunts for lack of a better term. I'm trying to see the down side other than $$$$.

BBM

That is one major fear. Calling in a 'special prosecutor' may turn into calling in 'an inquisition. ' How long are you going to have a potent police force when they start feeling that the prosecutor is going to bring on a biased investigation every time they need to defend themselves against a gang member or an armed robber?

 

[CoolJ]

BBM

That is one major fear. Calling in a 'special prosecutor' may turn into calling in 'an inquisition. ' How long are you going to have a potent police force when they start feeling that the prosecutor is going to bring on a biased investigation every time they need to defend themselves against a gang member or an armed robber?

They would just have to trust this special prosecutor the same way we are all required to trust LE.
IMO

 

[al66pine]

If flat out lying...absolutely should not put them on. For instance, one witness even
stated she lied to the cops and the FBI in her statements before ever being called to the stand.
Why in the world would McCulloch's office EVER call such a witness. I bet they have NEVER done that in their careers. So there is one MB witness who was lying who should have never, ever even been remotely considered as a witness before the grand jury.

bbm
Is it poss, after LE & FBI interviews & pre-GJ testimony, she told asst pros,
Well, I was not entirely truthful in those interviews, but now/tomorrow/next wk I'll tell TT, TWT, & NBT Truth to G/J?

If that happened, should asst pros put her on the stand?
If they don't, do they give G/J transcripts/vids of previous interviews, but not allow her to tell now-'truthful' version?
Is that the right decision, or are they keeping the truth from being told?
If they do put her on stand, do they give G/J transcripts/vids of previous interviews, so G/J knows she told other versions?
Is that the right decision? How do asst pros know which version is truthful?

How can asst pros make the 'right' decision? IDK. JM2cts.


----------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, when did wit state ^this^? Link pls?
After LE & FBI interviews and before she testified before G/J?
or
After LE & FBI interviews and after she testified before G/J?

 

[katydid23]

They would just have to trust this special prosecutor the same way we are all required to trust LE.
IMO

You are asking officers to put their own lives on the line, every single day. But then taking away their legal right to defend themselves, and telling them they can just go to trial and try and prove their self defense was justified.

This is giving the power to the armed criminals to take a chance and pull their weapons in an effort to get away, because the cops won't want to. It empowers and emboldens the criminal element. And greatly weakens the resolve of the officers.

 

[CoolJ]

You are asking officers to put their own lives on the line, every single day. But then taking away their legal right to defend themselves, and telling them they can just go to trial and try and prove their self defense was justified.

This is giving the power to the armed criminals to take a chance and pull their weapons in an effort to get away, because the cops won't want to. It empowers and emboldens the criminal element. And greatly weakens the resolve of the officers.

Maybe I am missing something from the conversation here. Why does having a special prosecutor take away a legal right for a LEO to defend themselves?