MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #18

[Klood-N]

Also relevant is FRE rule 404.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

The notes specifically mention this exact type circumstance:

The amendment makes clear that the accused cannot attack the alleged victim's character and yet remain shielded from the disclosure of equally relevant evidence concerning the same character trait of the accused. For example, in a murder case with a claim of self-defense, the accused, to bolster this defense, might offer evidence of the alleged victim's violent disposition. If the government has evidence that the accused has a violent character, but is not allowed to offer this evidence as part of its rebuttal, the jury has only part of the information it needs for an informed assessment of the probabilities as to who was the initial aggressor.
​

Thank you.

And this.


(2) After a child has been adjudicated delinquent pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, for an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, the records of the dispositional hearing and proceedings related thereto shall be open to the public to the same extent that records of criminal proceedings are open to the public. However, the social summaries, investigations or updates in the nature of presentence investigations, and status reports submitted to the court by any treating agency or individual after the dispositional order is entered shall be kept confidential and shall be opened to inspection only by order of the judge of the juvenile court;
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2110000321.htm

 

[popsicle]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not accurate. There are absolutely circumstances under which previous convictions/bad acts are admissible, including juvenile records.

(d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if:

(1) it is offered in a criminal case;

(2) the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;

(3) an adult’s conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s credibility; and

(4) admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609

See page 5 (and more) here.
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=lawreview

This is a GJ, not even a trial. So less restrictive, right?

 

[katydid23]

Actually, I very much doubt that the GJ has his records. Crimes (or potential crimes) are events, and the information used to evaluate a potential crime is what happened during that event (and leading up to it, with respect to premeditation). Criminal history is considered prejudicial information -- people are not convicted on the basis of reputation. Criminal history does matter for sentencing, but not for determining innocence or guilt, or for that matter a decision to indict.

One of the interesting facets of Grand Juries is that they do things the criminal courts do not allow. For example, hearsay evidence is often accepted in GJ's. And other things that would be considered prejudicial in regular courts.



When someone tried to sue because of the hearsay evidence this was the supreme court ruling:
Justice hugo l. black, in his majority opinion, rejected these claims, noting that "neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Grand+jury

 

[TheDuchess]

<mod snip>

The only way a dead person can stagger forward 25 feet after they are dead would be if they had plenty of forward motion...enough forward motion to also counter the force of several gunshot wounds.

 

[sonjay]

I got the feeling that OReilly didnt know too much about the facts of the case. He seemed to be sayng the cop shot mistakenly, out of fear.

Well, he's got it half right. The cop shot out of fear. IMO, very reasonable, understandable fear for his life. But the mistake would be if he didn't shoot, which quite possibly would have cost him his life.

 

[Klood-N]

I'm going to have to snip this right here. We're not talking about a juvenile adjudication. MB was an adult. Juvenile adjudications (trials) are handled differently than trials for adults. (You can check the first sentence of the article you linked to get a better sense of the context.) The digitalcommons article you linked was about juvenile trials, not adult trials.

As for your Cornell link -- yes, criminal records can be introduced to impeach a witness. But in this case, MB cannot testify, so he cannot provide any testimony to be impeached.

Moving the target doesn't work. You specifically said,

"criminal records are not admitted as evidence during a trial (except for during sentencing)."

Before that you'd said they're prejudicial, so my first link addressed that prejudicial information can come in.

Clearly from the links we've provided, there are circumstance where criminal records, including juvenile ones, are admissible.

Additionally, juvenile records can contain much more than crimes such as gang affiliation.

You think Michael's record won't be seen by the grand jury as part of their determination regarding justified shoot. I think it will. Let's leave it there.

 

[LambChop]

Anyone believe the Grand Jury might want this information from MB's juvenal records to explain why he may have attacked the officer? Stealing cigars is minor, certainly not something you would want to attack LE over. I believe if I were on this GJ I'd be asking to see those records. If there is nothing in them, then no harm is done. These will be serious charges against the officer if they do not have all the information that is available.

Plus, if MB has had some issues with LE in the past, those officers will be quite aware of it and would have given statements during the initial investigation. So the GJ would have to know if those statements were given and included in the investigation. I can't imagine any of the officers not coming forward wanting to give a statement, if they exist.

 

[TheDuchess]

Anyone believe the Grand Jury might want this information from MB's juvenal records to explain why he may have attacked the officer? Stealing cigars is minor, certainly not something you would want to attack LE over. I believe if I were on this GJ I'd be asking to see those records. If there is nothing in them, then no harm is done. These will be serious charges against the officer if they do not have all the information that is available.

Further to that question...anyone know if the GJ requested the records, would they be entitled to them?

 

[Klood-N]

Anyone believe the Grand Jury might want this information from MB's juvenal records to explain why he may have attacked the officer? Stealing cigars is minor, certainly not something you would want to attack LE over. I believe if I were on this GJ I'd be asking to see those records. If there is nothing in them, then no harm is done. These will be serious charges against the officer if they do not have all the information that is available.

Plus, if MB has had some issues with LE in the past, those officers will be quite aware of it and would have given statements during the initial investigation. So the GJ would have to know if those statements were given and included in the investigation. I can't imagine any of the officers not coming forward wanting to give a statement, if they exist.

And they go to Michael's state of mind that day. As I'd posted earlier, if he has a record, deferred sentence, probation, pending charge, that could be a reason, he could've been thinking, "I can't let this guy take me in."

Great points, fearless leader.

 

[LambChop]

Further to that question...anyone know if the GJ requested the records, would they be entitled to them?

If MB was the defendant, I want to say no. But MB is not the defendant as far as the Grand Jury is concerned.

 

[Oceans]

Distance from landscapers truck to MB body:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/854/5293055877.png

More than 223 feet! (74 yard!)

I highly doubt that those constructor workers could really see or hear anything from that distance! JMO.

 

[Oceans]

Father: he has been taught to understand and do the proper thing that he was told by a police officer

Michael Brown Sr. says he told his son repeatedly to treat police with respect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-brown-parents-reflect-on-their-loss/

“I let him know like, if the police ever get on you, I don’t care what you doing, give it up,” Mr. Ewing said. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/u...eeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=1

There were times when her son would talk back, Ms. McSpadden said. She relied on family and friends, including a retired juvenile officer, to help mentor her son.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/u...eeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=1



So, Michael knew better. He could've attacked the officer because he was on probation, or had a deferred adjudication or sentence, or a pending charge and a new arrest would've blown it up. That retired juvenile officer probably warned him before that charges as an adult are much more serious. (Speaking of, wonder who that juvie officer is, how Leslie came to know him/her, & what he/she might have to say now.) Michael's thought could have been "I CAN'T get arrested". He likely didn't expect the store to call the police.

Early on into this case, Anderson Cooper interviewed MB's parents. He actually asked the question if MB was taught to to interact with a police officer.

I remember quite well how MB's mom looked all surprised, almost defensive, shaking her head to indicate "no" and from her body language like "why would I have to teach him that?".

But then, MB's father quickly took over and did the talking (according to your links).

 

[Oceans]

In their defense, they did say they were 50 yards away. The MSM are the ones who changed it to 50 feet which is why I do not understand why we have to use MSM as source for every single thing

But the photos shows a distance of 223.53 feet:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/854/5293055877.png

 

[katydid23]

Sure, but that is not part of his criminal record, and it is probative because it is considered part of the same event, insofar as the strong-arm robbery can be argued as a reason for him to have attempted to evade (or confront) LE. That's totally different from looking at a criminal record, which is why criminal records are not admitted as evidence during a trial (except for during sentencing).

MB is not on trial. The officer is. And MB is deceased. So there is no legal issue with prejudicial evidence because MB is not a defendant.

 

[Oceans]

Anyone believe the Grand Jury might want this information from MB's juvenal records to explain why he may have attacked the officer? Stealing cigars is minor, certainly not something you would want to attack LE over. I believe if I were on this GJ I'd be asking to see those records. If there is nothing in them, then no harm is done. These will be serious charges against the officer if they do not have all the information that is available.

Plus, if MB has had some issues with LE in the past, those officers will be quite aware of it and would have given statements during the initial investigation. So the GJ would have to know if those statements were given and included in the investigation. I can't imagine any of the officers not coming forward wanting to give a statement, if they exist.

Absolutely! To see if there are any similarities from MB's past.

If the Grand Jury is allowed to follow the case in the media, they might be aware that a suit had been filed to make those juvenile records public. But it had been denied by the judge. All this secrecy would make me more curious if I were on the GJ. According to the motto: if you have nothing to hide... JMO.

 

[TheDuchess]

But the photos shows a distance of 223.53 feet:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/854/5293055877.png

Just under 75 yards. On your own 25 yard line looking into the end zone. What can you see? What can you hear? Any football players here?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...2!3m1!1s0x89c2f861ad5902bf:0x8184280d31051734

 

[SStarr33]

But the photos shows a distance of 223.53 feet:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/854/5293055877.png

LOL, I know. I posted the link. All I was saying is that the landscaper saying it was 50 yards is way better than the MSM saying it was 50 feet. I don't think they saw much at all.

 

[bettybaby00]

Attn Linda:

Retweeted by Matt Pearce
​

​

​

BuzzFeed Animals &#8207;@BuzzFeedAnimals 1h
"Nope. Haven't seen the cat anywhere."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxSL3jHCUAAQUiN.jpg

​

​

​

O/T

I have to admit I've been texting this to everyone! :loveyou:

 

[bettybaby00]

Just under 75 yards. On your own 25 yard line looking into the end zone. What can you see? What can you hear? Any football players here?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...2!3m1!1s0x89c2f861ad5902bf:0x8184280d31051734

Could explain the "walking dead guy" comment *shrugs*

 

[MyBelle]

Sure, but that is not part of his criminal record, and it is probative because it is considered part of the same event, insofar as the strong-arm robbery can be argued as a reason for him to have attempted to evade (or confront) LE. That's totally different from looking at a criminal record, which is why criminal records are not admitted as evidence during a trial (except for during sentencing).

his criminal record would certainly be available to an investigative grand jury because the officer was assaulted and sustained an injury that was attended at a hospital. If there is anything in his record that shows violence, I think that is very relevant information to help their conclusion as to whether the shooting was justified.

JMO