The DA's job is to present "evidence" so that the GJ can deterine whether probable cause exists to indict. Normal rules of evidence don't apply and the jurors themselves can ask whatever questions they want and can call their own witnesses.
Other Missouri laws still apply and thus whether the records are even available to the DA depends on the statute. As we've discussed before the statute requires a person claiming a legitimate interest to request a court order granting record access.
211.321. 1. Records of juvenile court proceedings as well as all information obtained and social records prepared in the discharge of official duty for the court shall not be open to inspection or their contents disclosed, except by order of the court to persons having a legitimate interest therein,
The statute also provides for opening the records for certain cases where the person is still a juvenile. But in general, it's about someone needing to request the records be opened for someone having a legitimate interest. I'm in no way a criminal attorney but I just feel doubtful that the DA would ask for these records in this case. But that might just be me. I'm just not sure the DA would want to rely on these records about the victim in any way. But I could be completely wrong here. As I said, it's pretty far outside my area of practice.
Now the robbery evidence, yes. And it certainly may be, that if the officer is indicted his attorney will request the sealed juvenile records. Honestly, the GJ could ask for them, if they were to ask the DA about the criminal background of the victim. Then a court would need to decide if the GJ had a legitimate interest in them.
I think the ADA's presenting the case will focus on the evidence surrounding the event, all witness testimony, including that of the officer, and the physical evidence relevant to the officer's injuries, the interior of the car, the gun, autopsy results. I'm pretty confident there won't be a need for any juvenile records if everyone does their job.
It's always important to remember that, although there are no real rules of evidence for a GJ, prosecutors are still bound by ethical rules, inclduing special ethical rules applicable to them. I feel like this is something else some people in the community and even the press may not be familair with.A prosecutor does not always prosecute.
RULE 4-3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
...
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;...
COMMENT
[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.....
Yes, yes! I commented earlier that I didn't know if I was being overly cynical, but I felt it was all way too carefully worded. his descriptions of MBs innocence needed a closer look. We were discussing earlier whether or not the GJ having access to this info? Any thoughts on that?
As for the last 1/2 of your post, it's one of the saddest parts of this case.
