Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

Yes, it's possible I misunderstood, which I admitted to Tomfoolry, w/my apologies and he understood and it was forgotten about - until now.

Don't you guys read the posts?

 

That cuts both ways. Wilson's testifying could have done him great harm if his story did not match the evidence.


Besides, isn't Scalia a radical liberal anyway?

 

LOL. That one came after my response.

Just remember, the Left lies. If anyone on the Left tells you something check it thoroughly.
It would have been okay to let my message pass as it was clear a few messages later that you realized yo8u had by taken by the completely, and utterly dishonest person who started this off.

 

Thank you - I feel so much better..... lol.

Yeah, I know the left lies like a rug and so do many of the righties.......

 

Nope. The 1992 case DID NOT say that. That case stated that there was no requirement to present exculpatory evidence and that a ruling could not be overturned because exculpatory evidence was not presented to a grand jury.

NOWHERE did the decision state that it was a violation of the victim's rights for a suspect to testify before a grand jury as you are asserting.

 

I don't need to reread your foolish analogy with its false scenario and phony assertion.

 

There are circumstances where an officer does not have to act in self defense in using lethal force.

The evidence is quite conclusive that he did once again as with the Zimmerman case you don't know the facts.

It was more like tend feet where he fell and where the shots were fired as Wilson was backing up. That was imminent danger. And what is the evidence to support your claim Wilson had no control of his emotions and your expertise in determining. This. If you actually listen to his statement of events. One can only determine he was in control and his training came through as he faced imminent danger.

Yes there were witnesses and forenic evidence.

A more uninformed statement about this incident I have yet to hear.

- - - Updated - - -

No it is not a first and not what the decision was about. It was whether it is required or can be compelled.

 

That is not supported in your cite so follow your link to the stats and give me the table that says the DOJ took 162,000 arrest to grand juries and only had 11 no bills.

 

Don't hold your breath because, like you say, the link does not support the contention. No surprise, really.

 

I don't see any direct quote by Scalia, only a description of what Scalia was saying. Direct quotes of Scalia do not match what the author of the article is saying. The quotes used come from case law from 1992.

There is no indication that Scalia has made any public statement regarding the Ferguson grand jury whatsoever.

What Scalia is saying in the 1992 case is factual in that Officer Wilson did not have a right to testify or present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. He does not say anywhere (from the quotes given by the article) that the DA does not have a right to call the officer or present exculpatory evidence, which he does.

And no, Scalia is not a liberal.

 

Not too many people here seem to realize that a grand jury is not a jury, and a grand jury hearing is not a trial. The purpose of the grand jury, in a nutshell, is to decide whether there is some likelihood that a crime was committed. It's up to an actual jury trial to determine the facts. In real jury trials, you have both a prosecution and a defense - in a grand jury, you only have the prosecutor. In a real jury trial, you have cross-examination, in a grand jury hearing you don't. In a real jury trial, you have rules for admissibility of evidence that don't apply to a grand jury. In practice, a grand jury is supposed to determine whether enough evidence MIGHT exist to carry forward with an actual investigation. The grand jury does NOT determine whether anyone is guilty or innocent.

So what McCullough engineered here, against the principles of a grand jury, was to ensure that the Brown family cannot get their day in court. It may be entirely probable that Wilson would be found to have done everything correctly anyway, but it's not the grand jury's responsibility to determine that. It's only their responsibility to determine if Brown's side of the case gets heard in the first place.

What McCullough did, in other words, was to tell the Browns that your opinions are not worth listening to! NOT that their opinions are incorrect (and they might well be incorrect), but that they are irrelevant. And people wonder why this got such a reaction.

 

They are desperate to something to mitigate the grand jury finding. From the spurious claims the prosecutor swayed the presentation, to the specious claims about cross-examinations, that somehow the evidence was not fully examined and the absurd claims that since the DA did not request an indictment the process was flawed. Now this claim.

 

No it is a jury which does it's own investigation, but still a jury made up of citizens charged with viewing the evidence in a prelimanary manner to decide if the government has probable cause to go to trial.

It is to decide if there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime and then go to trial with those charges, they do that based on the facts and the evidence presented to them.

Ahhh New York for example

190.30 Grand jury; rules of evidence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions of
article sixty, governing rules of evidence and related matters with
respect to criminal proceedings in general, are, where appropriate,
applicable to grand jury proceedings.
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/criminal-procedure/cpl0190.30_190.30.html
So while they may be somewhat relaxed there are still rules of evidence.

Well first of all they don't have a "day in court", it is Officer Wilson subject to a day in court and the grand jury did not find a probable cause to have one. The Brown family has no right to wrongfully prosecute someone just to satisfy their grief. And this grand jury was pefectly within the principles of a grand jury. To make sure citizens are not prosecuted for crimes when their is no probable cause to charge them with a crime.

It is the grand jury's responsibility to determine if the state has probable cause to charge someone with a crime and take them to trial, in this case they found no such probable cause that Wilson acted in self defense.

Brown's "side" has no consideration in this matter. It has nothing to do with them.

Well he didn't do that but that IS the case, their opinions have nothing to do with the legal proceeding before the grand jury or the what should or should not happen the Wilson.

Well they are and one reason our legal system is not dictated by the emotions of criminals families or even victims families. It is dictated by the rule of law.

 

I think this is the heart of the matter. If MY unarmed teenage son were gunned down, I would surely like the opportunity to ask direct questions, and cross-examine based on the testimony of anyone.

As you point out, the case for going forward need not be very strong. If the chances are 95% that Wilson would be found innocent, that 5% chance is STILL enough to justify going forward.

But look at what you are saying here: "The Brown family has no right to wrongfully prosecute someone just to satisfy their grief". But without a trial, we do not KNOW if the prosecution is wrongful. That's what a trial is for.

And I'm not even arguing against McCullough's virulent pro-police background, his father and grandfather being cops, his wife working for the police department for 20 years, etc -- except with a background like that, McCullough is "caesar's wife", so widely presumed to be out to protect the cops that he almost HAS to bend over backwards to bring an indictment. Otherwise, people are going to see this as a whitewash.

The grand jury level of "probable cause" is NOT whether there was probable cause Wilson acted in self defense. It's probable cause that something went wrong somehow, fatally wrong, and we should get to the bottom of it, not deny everyone the opportunity to make the attempt.

 

And guess what, you don't get to do so. You have nothing to do with prosecuting a crime and have no special standing in the court to do so. And BTW the witnesses in the grand jury were asked direct questions and their answers "crossed" and the grand jury could ask follow ups and cross examine themselves.

No there has to be probable cause, whether the DA could then get a conviction was not their concern, it was whether there was probable cause to prosecute him, there was none as the evidence overwhelmingly showed.

No it's not, that is what a grand jury or a preliminary hearing is for, we don't put people through trials to satisfy the grief of someone who knew the person murdered or attacked or whatever. We take people to trial when the evidence indicates they may have committed a crime, that was not the case here.

McCullough did not prosecute in the grand jury, to other DA's did and he as been reelected DA FOUR TIMES. Your assumptions are baseless and without warrant and certainly no reason to prosecute an innocent man.

Yes that was one consideration, Wilson was not denying he shot and killed Brown.

We did get to the bottom through an intensive investigation and then a grand jury. What evidence is it you think someone else has that proves Wilson committed a crime and who is this person and why didn't they bring it forward?

 

OK, this is clearly a waste of time. In this case, any DA who wanted an indictment from the grand jury could have had one in ten minutes. McCullough went to extraordinary lengths, almost unheard of in grand juries, to ensure that no indictment would be brought against a policeman.

Grand juries are part of a process of bringing justice, but processes are only as good as the people who operate them. In this case, the process was abused so as to protect the police, even knowing that the community would explode if they were denied a trial. And sure enough, we see those who are determined to defend the police, applauding the corruption of a process that might accuse a policeman.

Now, it so happens that I think Wilson acted properly under the circumstances, and that a genuine trial would have made this clear to everyone in the community. I'm sure there are questions nobody asked here, that would have been asked at an actual trial. But the argument instead is "we looked at all the evidence we feel is relevant, and couldn't find anything worth following up on." And how about evidence they didn't look at? Well, I guess it must not be relevant. So perhaps a real trial would have wasted everyone's time, right?

 

I've been making the same point for several days now.

Moreover, this procedure is ready made for abuse. What better way for a corrupt government to make sure one of its croonies never comes to trial. I'm not suggesting that is what happened here, but using a Grand Jury as a fake trial in secret opens up all sorts of possibilities for cover ups.

 

Your post is ridicuously false.

The transcripts exist, so we know that McCullogh soft peddled some witnesses and badgered ones unfavorable to Wilson. You make the claim that this is "spurious":, but we have it in print.

There are NO CROSS EXAMINATIONS in a Grand Jury hearing, as it is NOT a TRIAL. What part of that don't you understand.

You're bloviating, and everything you're saying is FALSE!!!!!!!

 

He went to the length of seeking proper justice and giving the grand jury ALL the evidence, we should NEVER want DA's to get indictments where they are not warranted. We should NEVER take someone to trial if there is not probable cause to do so. If you think otherwise then please explain why.

They most certainly are and why the Constitution includes them.

The abuse would have been indicting the police officer when there was no probable cause to so and the shooting was justified.

We don't put people through capital trials to satisfy the misguided demands of the community. That is NOT what our justice system is about and in fact is there to guaranty we do NOT do such things. And do tell me what evidence wasn't presented. You have the evidence and the transcripts of every witness testimony including the cross examination by the grand jururs themselves, so what questions weren't asked, what didn't they follow up on and be specific and not what-if's or should-have's.

 

Your baseless assertion is what is false.

And your ignorance of the facts blaring. You just proved you have not read the evidence and didn't even listen to McCullogh in his press conference nor have bother to educate yourself since. McCullough did not take part in the grand jury proceedings. He was not even there. Get your facts straight else you look foolish.

As spurious as your statement above.

The grand jury cross examined the witnesses, what don't you understand? The DA's crossed them against their previous statements to the police and in public, what don't you understand? And guess which ones did not hold up under cross, those who claimed Brown was shot in the back, those who claimed Brown was surrendering. Guess which ones held up under cross, those who statements corroborated Wilson.

- - - Updated - - -

How did the DA make sure Wilson never came to trial and be specific and give examples from the grand jury transcripts.

 

It is defacto policy where I live that when a police officer or government official is involved in a suspected crime, a prosecutor is brought in from another part of the state who has no ties to the person involved. The local police are for all intents and purposes an arm of the local prosecutor's office that uses them for their investigators. In addition, whether or not someone will likely be found guilty is not to be part of the GJ's deliberation.

There is so much procedurally wrong with what happened in this case, that the feds should become involved regardless of what the trial results would have been. The entire system has been corrupted by shoddy work in ferguson.

 

I don't know that to be defacto anywhere but the fact is the county, the state and the federal DOJ/FBI all investigated and all swapped evidence and interviews and all was presented to the grand jury.

Yes it is because if there is no probable cause to charge the person there is no reason to believe they will be found guilty in a trial. And we don't bring people up on criminal capital murder charges unless there is probable cause to do so.

There is nothing wrong with the proceedure and in fact they went out of their way to give them ALL the evidence not just selective evidence and the officer himself took the extraordinary step of testifying and submitting himself to questioning by the DA's AND the grand jury itself. And the Fed's took part in the investigation and handed over their evidence to the grand jury including their interviews with witnesses. Other than that they have no standing to prosecute Wilson on the criminal charges.

 

What makes you think that the feds cannot prosecute someone on a federal charge that the state did not pursue on a state charge? It was done during the civil rights era.

 

That was the entire point of the process. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

Jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction to bring a criminal charge here. They can and are looking at a Civil Rights violation but word is from weeks ago the evidence does not support such a charge and certainly there is no evidence in the grand jury proceeding to support one.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't make things up when your position is unsupportable and you got your facts so totally screwed up.

Again. How did the DA make sure Wilson never came to trial and be specific and give examples from the grand jury transcripts.