Ferguson Riots

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't think that calling witnesses and asking if they previously lied is prejudicial?

 

NO! His job is to determine if there's enough evidence to bring charges. He's not performing his duties if he essentially excuses bulls*** evidence in order to get an indictment.

[StrangeSox]

Ah yes, the old "the jury is full of a bunch of morons!!!! How can we expect them to come to the right decision that I want!" argument.

That doesn't presume that the jury is a bunch of morons. It acknowledges that a bunch of non-lawyers and non-experts trying to sort through 70 hours of testimony and a bunch of police reports with little or no guidance from experts on what it means etc. is placing a huge burden on the grand jury that they aren't going to be able to meet. That's why in a real trial both sides build a narrative instead of just throwing everything they possibly can at the jury and saying "you decide!"

[Jenksismyhero]

"I heard my friend say that she saw" should never have been presented to the GJ if it in fact was. That's intentionally sloppy work by the prosecutors to even bring these people in without screening them first.

 

THAT'S THE INFORMATION YOU WANTED THE GRAND JURY TO HAVE!!!!!!!!

 

You are literally arguing against yourselves here. You're saying that the prosecutor performed a terrible job because he put witnesses in front of the grand jury WITH HELPFUL INFORMATION that would support charges. You're saying he should have EXCLUDED helpful witnesses to getting a trial in this case. That makes zero sense.

[StrangeSox]

NO! His job is to determine if there's enough evidence to bring charges. He's not performing his duties if he essentially excuses bulls*** evidence in order to get an indictment.

So he has a duty to present unreliable witnesses who weren't actually witnesses? Why doesn't he have a duty to simply not present bad witnesses who didn't actually witness anything?

[Jenksismyhero]

Prosecutors and defense attorneys usually have a pretty solid idea of what someone is going to say during testimony, don't they? Shouldn't a competent prosecutor ask a potential witness if they actually were a witness before they're seated in front of the grand jury?

 

Can people perjure themselves in GJ testimony or is none of it sworn?

 

Depends. It's not like they get to interview every witness before trial. They usually stick with public interviews and/or police interviews and go from there.

[Balta1701]

NO! His job is to determine if there's enough evidence to bring charges. He's not performing his duties if he essentially excuses bulls*** evidence in order to get an indictment.

And he's also not doing his job if he knows witness statements are bull plop and presents them to the GJ anyway.

 

In an actual trial, what would be your reaction if a prosecutor called someone to the stand and then under cross examination admitted they were basing their statements on hearsay? That actually happened in this case and the prosector's office was the one doing the cross examination.

[Balta1701]

THAT'S THE INFORMATION YOU WANTED THE GRAND JURY TO HAVE!!!!!!!!

 

You are literally arguing against yourselves here. You're saying that the prosecutor performed a terrible job because he put witnesses in front of the grand jury WITH HELPFUL INFORMATION that would support charges. You're saying he should have EXCLUDED helpful witnesses to getting a trial in this case. That makes zero sense.

He wanted the grand jury to have hearsay and you support this?!

[StrangeSox]

THAT'S THE INFORMATION YOU WANTED THE GRAND JURY TO HAVE!!!!!!!!

 

You are literally arguing against yourselves here. You're saying that the prosecutor performed a terrible job because he put witnesses in front of the grand jury WITH HELPFUL INFORMATION that would support charges. You're saying he should have EXCLUDED helpful witnesses to getting a trial in this case. That makes zero sense.

 

I want the GJ to have legitimate first-hand accounts. There were plenty of those available. I don't see why they should have been presented with second-hand accounts. I don't think that's particular helpful information. It's also not helpful to the grand jury to present witnesses who you know (or should know) are lying and then use those witnesses as a reason to not indict.

Edited November 26, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

So he has a duty to present unreliable witnesses who weren't actually witnesses?

 

No, his duty would have been to look at these witnesses and say "this is s*** evidence, proving even more why I can't bring charges in this case. So I'm not going to convene a grand jury or request a prelim hearing with a judge because my evidence is lacking."

 

In reality though, I think in this situation what happened was some of the witnesses recanted their prior press interview statements during the grand jury proceeding. It came out there. That's an assumption on my part based on the press conference. I haven't read the transcripts.

 

Why doesn't he have a duty to simply not present bad witnesses who didn't actually witness anything?

 

Because in this case he didn't want to bring charges but he didn't want to be the sole decision maker there, knowing the incredible backlash that would come either way. He wanted every possible piece of evidence, good and bad, to be given to a grand jury so that they could decide what charges, if any, to bring.

[Jenksismyhero]

And he's also not doing his job if he knows witness statements are bull plop and presents them to the GJ anyway.

 

In an actual trial, what would be your reaction if a prosecutor called someone to the stand and then under cross examination admitted they were basing their statements on hearsay? That actually happened in this case and the prosector's office was the one doing the cross examination.

 

1) He's not a judge. He doesn't know for sure if a witnesses information will be considered hearsay or if it may be admitted under an exception

 

2) He's not the other side. They may fail to make an appropriate objection.

 

Again, you guys are arguing that he botched this procedure by giving a grand jury testimony from witnesses that would support charges, but that may later not be admissible at court. He in effect hurt his chances of NOT getting an indictment, but you're still upset about that?

[StrangeSox]

No, his duty would have been to look at these witnesses and say "this is s*** evidence, proving even more why I can't bring charges in this case. So I'm not going to convene a grand jury or request a prelim hearing with a judge because my evidence is lacking."

 

How does one witness being s*** effect other witnesses who actually saw the incident and haven't changed their story? Because someone else made some s*** up or is just repeating things second-hand undermines other witnesses' credibility?

 

In reality though, I think in this situation what happened was some of the witnesses recanted their prior press interview statements during the grand jury proceeding. It came out there. That's an assumption on my part based on the press conference. I haven't read the transcripts.

 

But it's not like the first time the prosecutors have a chance to talk to this people is in front of the grand jury. If they're trying to build a case (and ostensibly that's what they were trying to do in front of a grand jury), they shouldn't sabotage themselves.

 

Why doesn't he have a duty to simply not present bad witnesses who didn't actually witness anything?

 

Because in this case he didn't want to bring charges but he didn't want to be the sole decision maker there, knowing the incredible backlash that would come either way. He wanted every possible piece of evidence, good and bad, to be given to a grand jury so that they could decide what charges, if any, to bring.

 

Knowingly presenting bad evidence screams of huge ethical violations here, to me at least. Are you really sure you want to say that this DA did the right thing in presenting witnesses and other evidence he knew to be bad? How on earth does that help anyone? If you're not trying to deliberately undermine the whole thing, why not just present the good evidence?

 

[Milkman delivers]

If you get pulled over and your credentials get run and they come up suspended, a warrant, or not valid for any reason it gets dealt with the same way no matter what color you are. Its not like they said, well Jimmy we see a warrant for your arrest and you have a suspended license but I see you went to Sandburg, live in Orland, and are white so have a nice day and don't do it again. The same with insurance. You need valid insurance to drive a car. If you don't have a valid license, have a warrant or no insurance then don't drive a car. That's not a poverty violation. Driving is a privilege not a right. The same with expired plates and registration.

 

A while back, I mentioned that personal cameras on police will only result in more arrests and tickets. This is what I'm talking about. You can pull over the first 10 cars you see with violations, and likely more than half will have no insurance or a suspended or revoked license. If the cop has a camera on him recording every step of that, well now a ticket probably has to be written to cover his own ass.

[Jenksismyhero]

I want the GJ to have legitimate first-hand accounts. There were plenty of those available. I don't see why they should have been presented with second-hand accounts. I don't think that's particular helpful information. It's also not helpful to the grand jury to present witnesses who you know (or should know) are lying and then use those witnesses as a reason to not indict.

 

I agree. But again, if he fails to provide that information to the grand jury, and they decide not to indict, you're all over his ass for not giving the grand jury all of the known evidence, whether it's admissible later at trial or not.

[StrangeSox]

1) He's not a judge. He doesn't know for sure if a witnesses information will be considered hearsay or if it may be admitted under an exception

 

2) He's not the other side. They may fail to make an appropriate objection.

 

Again, you guys are arguing that he botched this procedure by giving a grand jury testimony from witnesses that would support charges, but that may later not be admissible at court. He in effect hurt his chances of NOT getting an indictment, but you're still upset about that?

Getting testimony from unreliable witnesses who recant their story in front of the GJ was not going to help him get an indictment. It was only going to hurt those chances, and he made that very clear himself at his press conference.

[Balta1701]

I agree. But again, if he fails to provide that information to the grand jury, and they decide not to indict, you're all over his ass for not giving the grand jury all of the known evidence, whether it's admissible later at trial or not.

No one on Earth would be angry at him not giving the grand jury hearsay or for him not presenting witnesses who had recanted their story.

 

Well, maybe the officer.

[Milkman delivers]

Many of these things are made worse by poverty and then quickly compound, as the article points out. Getting pulled over because you can't afford to fix a broken tail light or a cracked windshield but you still need the car to drive to work is a "poverty violation."

 

There's also the documented statistical difference in how frequently black people are pulled over for minor infractions versus white people. This also applies to being too poor to be in an area regardless of color, as that happened to my wife and I once.

 

Those minor equipment violations, while they may lead to being pulled over, are WAY less likely to result in tickets (in Chicago, at least).

[StrangeSox]

I agree. But again, if he fails to provide that information to the grand jury, and they decide not to indict, you're all over his ass for not giving the grand jury all of the known evidence, whether it's admissible later at trial or not.

I don't think it's very fair of you to keep assuming that we'd just take the exact opposite position of what we are saying now in other circumstances. We're not all lawyers, ya know.

 

Nobody was going to be all over his ass for presenting meaningless hearsay and especially for not presenting recanting witnesses. That doesn't even make sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

How does one witness being s*** effect other witnesses who actually saw the incident and haven't changed their story? Because someone else made some s*** up or is just repeating things second-hand undermines other witnesses' credibility?

 

He made it seem like the majority of those witnesses who claimed to see the surrender changed their stories. I don't know if that's true or not.

 

 

 

But it's not like the first time the prosecutors have a chance to talk to this people is in front of the grand jury. If they're trying to build a case (and ostensibly that's what they were trying to do in front of a grand jury), they shouldn't sabotage themselves.

 

Knowingly presenting bad evidence screams of huge ethical violations here, to me at least. Are you really sure you want to say that this DA did the right thing in presenting witnesses and other evidence he knew to be bad? How on earth does that help anyone? If you're not trying to deliberately undermine the whole thing, why not just present the good evidence?

 

He doesn't know if it's bad. He might think that, but again, he's not a judge or the defense attorney.

 

And again, you're arguing that he should have not put people on the grand jury stand to testify what they heard, hearsay or not, when that evidence supports efforts to bring charges. You want him to put on a less than stellar case from the get go. I don't know why you think that makes sense.

 

Again, it goes back to the getting an indictment of a ham sandwich. You can put on one witness on that you know will say "I saw Wilson kill Brown." and leave it at that. Wilson can't defend himself. There's no adversarial component to it. The grand jury hears self-serving information and makes a decision on that. That is WAY less acceptable than putting on every bit of information he's got, whether it will ultimately be heard by a jury later at a trial.

[StrangeSox]

Those minor equipment violations, while they may lead to being pulled over, are WAY less likely to result in tickets (in Chicago, at least).

yeah, that piece in particular was about St. Louis county which apparently is known for its "speed traps" and "minor violation" traps like that. A lot of these small towns get a majority of their revenue from those sorts of violations. The article details how that came to be, but essentially you have a ton of subdivision-and-slightly-larger municipalities with their own local governments, police forces etc. that all need income, and tickets and fines are their easiest source.

[NorthSideSox72]

What outlier? Native American populations have well-documented struggles with alcohol and drug abuse, especially on reservations. That would also explain incarceration/prosecution differences if it's mainly handled (or ignored) by reservation police.

Sort of a tangent, but... on this stat, it was talking about minor traffic infractions. The reason they have so few in that group is that many of them live on and spend most of their time on reservations. Those are patrolled generally by some sort of tribal police force, and those forces usually to next to no traffic enforcement on local roads. The reasons for that are many, but just wanted to point the likely reason for that particular anomoly.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Getting testimony from unreliable witnesses who recant their story in front of the GJ was not going to help him get an indictment. It was only going to hurt those chances, and he made that very clear himself at his press conference.

 

Correct. But it's also clear his goal wasn't to get an indictment simply because he could (and he could have). He wanted a grand jury, people of the county, to decide that with all of the potential information, good or bad, in front of them.

 

How you guys think that is a less judicious process is beyond me.

[StrangeSox]

He made it seem like the majority of those witnesses who claimed to see the surrender changed their stories. I don't know if that's true or not.

 

 

 

 

 

He doesn't know if it's bad. He might think that, but again, he's not a judge or the defense attorney.

 

And again, you're arguing that he should have not put people on the grand jury stand to testify what they heard, hearsay or not, when that evidence supports efforts to bring charges. You want him to put on a less than stellar case from the get go. I don't know why you think that makes sense.

 

Putting up crappy witnesses who change their story or who aren't actually witnesses is what makes a less-than-stellar case. You seem to be saying that a prosecutor is just a complete dunce who has no discretion on what evidence to present and its validity.

 

Again, it goes back to the getting an indictment of a ham sandwich. You can put on one witness on that you know will say "I saw Wilson kill Brown." and leave it at that. Wilson can't defend himself. There's no adversarial component to it. The grand jury hears self-serving information and makes a decision on that. That is WAY less acceptable than putting on every bit of information he's got, whether it will ultimately be heard by a jury later at a trial.

Like I said before, if the ultimate outcome of this situation is that prosecutors across the country take a more skeptical view of charges against everybody, not just police officers, going forward, that'll be fantastic. But I don't think the days of ham sandwich indictments are really going anywhere.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think it's very fair of you to keep assuming that we'd just take the exact opposite position of what we are saying now in other circumstances. We're not all lawyers, ya know.

 

Nobody was going to be all over his ass for presenting meaningless hearsay and especially for not presenting recanting witnesses. That doesn't even make sense.

 

 

Those witnesses had other information than JUST hearsay about whether they saw him surrender. They're still witnesses to portions of what happened and the aftermath.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Sort of a tangent, but... on this stat, it was talking about minor traffic infractions. The reason they have so few in that group is that many of them live on and spend most of their time on reservations. Those are patrolled generally by some sort of tribal police force, and those forces usually to next to no traffic enforcement on local roads. The reasons for that are many, but just wanted to point the likely reason for that particular anomoly.

Yeah I don't actually know native american prosecution/incarceration rates off the top of my head or if they're substantially different from other groups, but I figured that if they were, "tribal police system" would be the obvious answer. Do you know if tribal arrests show up in federal crime statistics at all?

[Balta1701]

Correct. But it's also clear his goal wasn't to get an indictment simply because he could (and he could have). He wanted a grand jury, people of the county, to decide that with all of the potential information, good or bad, in front of them.

 

How you guys think that is a less judicious process is beyond me.

How you see that as a more judicious process than an adversarial trial is equally beyond me.