should brown prosecutor be charged?

Because I've never asked: Do you, in terms of being American, consider yourself part of "us" or part of "them"? That is to say, last I heard, it was your system, too.

Neither is it a huge deal; it's just something I noticed about us and them and whether one agrees with this or that.

However, the idea that the system is fucked is hardly news. Indeed, for decades that has been one of the major valences of dispute; if one complains about injustice, one must hate the whole of the system↱.

But I also have to admit that beyond that first sentence, your post is pretty much incomprehensible. I can guess, sure, but the historical statistics would suggest I will guess wrong even if I guess right.

But, yes, the system is completely fucked. This much we've known for years. Beyond that, though, what is it you're trying to say?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mine? Why, I'm only a humble alien. I vote not. But the problem would appear to be the adversarial legal system. At what point did the process of Western justice become a reality-based game? I think I missed it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Backwards. The problem we have in front of us is a DA dodging and avoiding the legal adversarial system. We were denied the adversarial legal system we have set up to help prevent this kind of miscarriage of justice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might be looking at the idea of adversarialism less juristically than the situation would demand.

Look, the question of a grand jury investigation is whether or not to indict a person. The idea of convening a grand jury when one doesn't see a reason to indict is absurd, and would look something like what McCulloch has done.

You don't put the object of the investigation on the stand and not question him adversarially. Procedurally—as a question of process—that is insane. Nobody else gets that kind of treatment during a grand jury investigation.

Most defense attorneys don't want their clients on the stand at a grand jury investigation because taking the Fifth in front of such a body practically invites indictment. If a prosecutor wants to put the object of a grand jury investigation on the stand, it is because that will help achieve an indictment.

At an actual trial, the state would in effect be representing the dead man.

In theory, the state should be representing the dead man during the grand jury investigation. Yet prosecutor McCulloch and his team put known liars on the stand. When their stories spoke against the officer, they were treated adversarially. When their stories spoke against the dead man, they were encouraged and reinforced. Even if we set aside the impropriety of putting known liars on the stand, McCulloch and his team did it exactly backwards. In the end, prosecutors represented the officer, and nobody represented the dead man.

Procedurally, this is a problem.

Adversarialism is an inherent aspect of opposition. The timing and effect of its presence and absence in the Ferguson case is statistically irregular from Hell to breakfast, and procedurally improper to the point of being antithetical.

Did McCulloch convene this grand jury because he couldn't see a way not to? Did he throw the investigation to cover a cop, as he has appeared to in the past?

That the system is fucked is not news; the question of whether it is fucked this severely, however, seems to have people's attention at present. And, yes, I would suggest there is a reason.

 

[deleted: don't care enough]

 

Exactly! Thank you, Mr. Watters.

 

Sorry, I deleted that post after making it because there is a small but complicated issue in it that I didn't want to expand on, so I deleted it instead. Either way, my main point was the part you quoted: most of the accusations being thrown around here are just fantasies (as has been typical with these cases). What people are claiming the prosecutor did is not described in the article.

 

I would assume most of the players in the judicial system assume people are going to lie, even take it (lying--to one degree or another) as a given, oaths notwithstanding.

 

In truth, the first thing to mind upon reading the quoted portion is similar to what I advised Geoff above↑, and largely reflects what I noted yesterday↗ in a different thread, shortly before you posted in this one:

What is known:

(1) Witness 40 told a false tale.

(2) This was known before she was put on the witness stand.

(3) Rather than discrediting her, prosecutors invited her back for a second session.

(4) Bob McCulloch has acknowledged that he knowingly put liars on the stand.​

My point yesterday had to do with the way in which the prosecution handled the witnesses, but those four points also include a functional definition of persuasion. That is to say, Witness 40 lied, so what? As long as she was lying abstractly in the world at large, it is what it is. But in calling her to the stand, prosecutors suborned perjury; that is sufficient to constitute encouragement as you have presented it, or persuasion as the Wiki definition runs.

I would ask you to consider the alternative as you have proposed it: Prosecutors could line up false witnesses with a nod and wink all they want, and never do anything wrong.

Consider the implications of the alternative you presented. Perhaps these are the complications you mentioned?

 

Do you have access to her testimony and the questions she was asked? The article linked in the OP doesn't say one way or another whether the prosecutor presented evidence/asked questions intending to "discredit" her. So were did you get that idea?

[edit] FYI: At the 1:45 mark in the linked video in the OP link, they quote witness 40 as saying the prosecutor tried to discredit her.

They most certianly do not.

That is complete nonsense. It cannot be assumed that the prosecutor endorses the false testimony, much less is encouraging the witness to give false testimony, just by the act of inviting the person to testify! Again: you are assuming the prosecutor made no attempt to get credible testimony from the witness (such as swearing-her in, reminding her of her oath or presenting evidence that she wasn't there).​

Given that we're just making assumptions here, I'll choose not to assume that the prosecutor intended to paint a false picture or encourage false testimony. Since we have no access to the testimony, we don't know either way. Indeed, since the prosecutor said he wanted to present all available evidence, I think it is logical to assume he presented evidence that the witnesses were lying.

And by the way, lawyers - particularly defense lawyers - do indeed often call witnesses who they believe - but can't necessarily prove - are lying. And yes, that rises only slightly above a wink and a nod, but it is still above. And we are talking about a potential defense witness here.

No, the complications are in the simplicity of the wiki article's definition. The "allows a person to lie under oath" part. It is more than that -- it requires a specific agreement to lie.

 

I guess I'm in it now, so I'll list the fantasies:

The link in the OP doesn't say that. Unless you can provide documentation of that, it must be your fantasy.

The link in the OP doesn't say that. Unless you can provide documentation of that, it must be your fantasy.

The link in the OP does not say the prosecutor asked for perjury. That is certainly fantasy, because even if it were true, there is no way you could ever know it because it happened behind closed doors.

 

By the way, I'm finally watching the video in the OP. What a crock from leftist MSNBC. "You don't have to be a lawyer to know that that doesn't make any sense" (putting every witness, regardless of credibility, on the stand). Of course it does! Well, maybe not to MSNBC, who would only air anti-cop witnesses, regardless of their credibility. But to someone who wants to be fair: if the prosecutor had left-out anti-cop witnesses because they weren't credible, you can be damn sure MSNBC would be blasting him over it! Indeed, you don't hear MSNBC complaining that he presented anti-cop witnesses who were lying (and we can be pretty sure he did), do you? Hypocrites.

 

Ok, for people can handle the straight logic, here were the prosecutor's options:

1. Present only credible pro-prosecution witnesses. Receive criticism from you-know-who for presenting a weak case.
2. Present a vigorous pro-prosecution case (all anti-cop witnesses, even the perjurors). Risk disbarment/lawsuit for suborning perjury and malicious prosecution. (See: Zimmerman prosecution).
3. Present all witnesses from both sides. Receive hypocritical criticism for presenting the half of the perjurors that you-know-who doesn't like, but not the other half.
4. Present only pro-defense witnesses. As a prosecutor? He'd be strung-up!
5. Decline to prosecute at all because he knew the evidence didn't favor it. Receive criticism from you-know-who. (see: Zimmerman prosecution)

So he was trapped. But he chose the course of action that presented the most justice (presenting both sides equally) and least potential criticism/consequences.

 

Why?

If you were a prosecutor, why would you deliberately put false testimony on the stand in a grand jury investigation?

 

Read my list in post #33 and respond to the logic.

Essentially though, the answer is that failure to put every pro-prosecution witness on the stand, whether credible or not, or even to decline to prosecute at all, would open him to the same hypocritical criticism the initial Zimmerman prosecutor got -- so instead, he put every witness on the stand, pro and con, credible and not credible. That provided the most balance and best appearance of fairness.

 

No. What would have been most fair would be never having the grand jury in the first place due to the lack of evidence of a crime and direct evidence of lack of crime. Not to mention, compensation for the officer's loss of income. But we don't live in a society that values fairness, we live in one that looks to target police officers who are just doing their jobs. So the prosecutor felt that the mob wouldn't accept him doing his job the way it should have been done (see: Zimmerman case), so he took bogus charges to a grand jury to try to protect his butt as best he could.

You aren't that naive -- but perhaps that hypocritical: It stands to reason that the prosecutor put witnesses on the stand who lied about seeing Wilson shoot Brown in the back. Where's your outrage over that? The reality here is that you don't care about the truth, you only care about going after an innocent cop.

But that's my point: from what we can surmise, he did produce witnesses who lied AGAINST the cop. But you - and MSNBC - don't care about that. You don't care that the prosecutor was even-handed -- you want a anti-cop biased prosecutor.

*Cough* But you haven't been saying that! *Cough*

This entire thread has been about anti-prosecution witnesses. That's all the "outrage" has been over. That's hypocritical! The pro-prosecution witnesses wouldn't be part of the discussion unless I brought it up!

I outlined the logic that forced him into that course of action. Feel free to address it.

Why don't you ask the Zimmerman prosecutor that?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/florida-trayvon-martin-case/


Bells, just in case you forgot what you claimed in your first post, here it is again:

You're saying that the prosecutor purposely painted a picture of an innocent officer Wilson using lying witnesses. But an hour ago, you acknowledged that the lying almost certainly went both ways. So don't try to pretend that you're after fairness here: you're angry at the prosecution because you didn't get the result you wanted, not because it wasn't fair: because as far as we know, it was fair.

 

This has been repeated over and over again, but I will repeat it one more time. It appears Bells and others don't understand and may not want to understand that a grand jury isn't a criminal trial jury. They keep acting as if the grand jury is a criminal trial jury, and it isn't. A grand jury is an investigative body. It isn't a criminal trial jury. The grand jury investigated the case to see if it could find probable cause of a crime. It investigated. It talked to all the witnesses. It talked with those who lied on both sides of this issue. It looked at all the evidence. As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, the grand jurors were free to directly ask any and all the questions they want of the witnesses. The grand jury didn't acquit Wilson. It found was no crime, therefore there was no probable cause to indict Officer Wilson.


Wouldn't it be grand if police couldn't talk to anyone who might tell them a lie while investigating crimes? That is essentially what Bells is arguing for.

 

That is more than a little disingenuous considering Wilson is now without a job.

So in your view frivolous and incompetent prosecutions are good? The reason we have grand juries is to prevent incompetent or malicious prosecutions. You seem to be inviting them.

Nice straw man. No one is arguing police officers shouldn’t be held accountable if they screw up. The reason most Americans are not up in arms is because there is no evidence the cop in this case did screw up. That is why the state attorney general, the bar, federal authorities have not and will not charge the attorney general you want thrown in jail for anything. One requires evidence to be thrown in jail in this country and you and those like you don’t have it.

Good example, you keep treating the grand jury as if it were a criminal trial jury. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it isn’t. It is an investigative body. As I said before, how great would it be if cops were forbidden to speak with anyone who might lie to them? McCulloch isn’t pressing charges against those who lied on the stand because his office has limited resources and has been repeatedly pointed out to you, a lot of people lied on the witness stand – mostly against Officer Wilson.

Then why do you keep ignoring those witnesses who lied against Officer Wilson and solely focus on the one juror who lied to support Officer Wilson’s account?

When did McCulloch admit he was wrong to allow all witnesses testify? Again, your focus on witness number 40 to the exclusion of all others (e.g. witness 41 and 42, etc.) is telling. And it ignores the fact that a grand jury is an investigative body and not a criminal trial jury. And then there are the physical facts which you keep ignoring.

McCulloch did his job as he was legally required to do, and that is why he has not and will not be prosecuted by state or federal authorities.

I cannot disagree with you on that one.

The world will largely ignore it, because it isn’t relevant. What McCulloch did isn’t even wrong. McCulloch allowed everyone to testify. He didn’t suborn perjury as you have repeatedly alleged. Imagine all the things you would be saying if he didn’t allow the many witnesses against Officer Wilson testify just to keep one inconsequential witness for Wilson from testifying.

And right from the beginning you have been wrong. You keep treating the grand jury as if it were a trial jury. It isn’t. As has been endlessly repeated, the grand jury is an investigative body. Its purpose is to prevent frivolous prosecutions. If police were only allowed to speak and listen to people who wouldn’t lie to them, criminals would never go to jail. The grand jury saw all the evidence. It heard all witnesses and it made its decision based on all the evidence and the testimony of all the witnesses. You don’t think the grand jury is smart enough to figure out which witnesses were credible and which were not?

Actually, no, the grand jury was never meant to be impartial. As has been explained to you many times before, most of the time it isn’t impartial. Most of the time grand jurors only see the prosecution witnesses. You keep treating the grand jury as if it were a criminal trial jury, it isn’t. As has been explained to you endlessly, no one has been legally accused. Therefore, there is no cross examination inside grand juries anywhere at any time…not just in the Wilson case. The grand jury is an investigative body and unlike criminal juries, grand jurors can and do independently question witnesses. They don’t need a lawyer or an advocate to question witnesses.

How you can say there was no fairness in Ferguson grand jury is beyond me. Considering the prosecutor didn’t advocate for any point of view and allowed the grand jury to hear all witnesses and see all the evidence and question all the witnesses and evidence, it is difficult to see how that can be construed as “mischaracterization”.

I don’t see anyone looking away except folks like you who keep ignoring inconvenient evidence and misconstruing the facts of the matter. If there were a shred of impropriety here, the state attorney general, the state bar, and the US attorney general would bring charges against McCulloch and the press would be all over it. They haven’t and they won’t. We gave up lynch mob justice along time ago and let’s hope it never returns.