Discussion: Prosecutor Investigating Ferguson Grand Jury For Misconduct

Discussion for article #228337

Wow, I’m impressed.

I was wondering how they were planning to get everything dismissed. Now it all makes sense - jury dismissed for questionable behavior, case never gets re-opened.

4 Likes

Wow…spineless prosecutor won’t charge Wilson, so he’s going to make absolutely certain that the grand jury can’t either.

Meanwhile, one of the programs at my college has invited Mumia Abu-Jamal to speak to them. I can’t help but feeling that people are rather upset with the police right now.

2 Likes

They had better get their shit together down there. If they don’t look for more confrontations with the police. I suspect that the Department of Justice will have to step in and arrest this bastard on Civil Rights charges.

3 Likes

But that’s in a perfect world. In the real world, the prosecutor’s trying to get a mistrial from his own grand jury.

Paging Mr. Chief Justice Roberts… paging Mr. Chief Justice JOHN Roberts…

8 Likes

In [Ferguson], everybody’s gotta watch everybody else. Since the players are looking to beat the casino, the dealers are watching the players. The box men are watching the dealers. The floor men are watching the box men. The pit bosses are watching the floor men. The shift bosses are watching the pit bosses. The casino manager is watching the shift bosses. I’m watching the casino manager. And the eye-in-the-sky is watching us all.

1 Like

No. At worse, that particular juror would get dismissed and an alternate juror would take his or her place. No judge is going to disband the entire grand jury for something like this. It’s not actually all that uncommon for a jurors in to be caught violating their promise not to discuss the case with anyone (even with co-jurors prior to deliberations), especially in high profile cases, and it doesn’t necessarily even lead to the dismissal of that particular juror, depending on the extent of the “discussion.” And even if such a juror misconduct comes to light after an indictment or conviction, it’s not likely to lead to a new trial unless the defendant can show he or she was materially prejudiced by the misconduct.

Friends told her to delete it, and she then did.

I hope she gets charged with evidence tampering, or (attempted) destruction of evidence or otherwise impeding an investigation. It would be an excellent precedent to set.

1 Like

Shaun King, a blogger journalist, learned of the tweets and screen caught them before they were destroyed. He tracked down the woman tweeter, Susan Nichols (not the juror), it appears she has ties to the Darren Wilson “fan club”. This seems more serious but then this is St. Louis County, reincarnated confederate territory apparently.

This is all by design and just a few miles from Dred Scott’s home.

5 Likes

How could she be charged with anything? Her friend, on the other hand…

-only suggesting the motive for the tweeter
The juror is the problem for the Pros. Atty. and should be replaced. But were there replacements jurors who heard all the evidence? I assume although the investigation has been completed (announced today) the GJ may still have a bit to review before giving the “no bill” (as the fix is probably still in).

Sounds like intimidation.

The judge may not disband the jury, but the DA now has “cause” to ignore anything they come up with that doesn’t make Darren Wilson pure as the driven snow. Watch.

I don’t know what you mean. Can you expand on this and explain in precise terms what you believe is going to happen as a result of a juror possibly discussing the case with a friend or family member? What do you mean the DA can now “ignore anything [jurors] come up with”? That’s well outside my understanding of the independence of grand juries as well as the ramifications of juror misconduct of this nature.

I heard a rumor that they might just can the juror once they figure out who it is and leave the rest of the jury intact. Anyone here an expert on grand juries?

I can’t speak for state grand juries in Missouri, but most states follow the federal model, so I would guess there are alternate jurors who have been seated all along. Alternate jurors are particularly important in grand juries because grand juries serve for a relatively long time and hear multiple cases. During that time, it’s not unusual for jurors to petition a judge to be excused due to family emergencies, etc. The loss of a juror is neither uncontemplated or uncommon.

But even if there are no alternates or alternates have been exhausted, because grand jury decisions do not require unanimity, the remaining juror may deliberate and reach a decision.

Not to diminish the seriousness of juror misconduct in general, I think some people have lost perspective and this is really much ado about – I won’t say nothing, but – little.

1 Like

Thanks. A little here glitch, a litte glitch there. It adds up.

Jason Leapold finally received a copy of the FPD Police Manual
https://news.vice.com/article/heres-a-first-look-at-the-ferguson-police-departments-internal-code-of-conduct
The professional conduct is all written down, probably just like dozens of manuals you have read, but in the real world of Ferguson it is as if it was never read. It is all by design.

Could be faked just to mess with the grand jury and get the narrative flowing that any indictment was tainted. I can absolutely see the conservative bigots trying to pull something like that. Now that there’s an “investigation,” that will feed them all the “evidence” they need to question any result they don’t like and they will feed those talking points right to the MSM, which will promptly turn around and repeat it all with a carefully uncritical eye.

Or not. Who freekin’ knows at this point. I can tell you one thing though: there IS enough evidence to indict Wilson, especially after seeing that video of those witnesses yelling and miming right after the incident that Brown had his hands up. Indicted for what is the question. One game the prosecutor could play here is to present the case to the grand jury focusing only on 1st or 2nd degree murder but ignore negligent or reckless homicide or some lesser included offense like the variations of manslaughter. Personally, I think the latter are where this probably should go, but if he only seeks indictments on crimes that require much higher levels of intent to prove, that would be one way to arrange for no indictment issuing. Is he doing that? I dunno. But the whole thing is starting to stink, especially after hearing about that new “course” they’re offering to law enforcement about “winning” the PR game in these instances. This isn’t a game.

Link to this information?