|
Cenodoxus posted:Huh, I always considered a lawful killing, especially in regards to capital punishment, to be an "execution" rather than a homicide. To me the use of the word homicide implies criminal action or criminal investigation. Broadly speaking, a homicide is just a death caused by another person. Murder is a particular sort of homicide, defined by statute and subject to different exceptions and justifications. Eric Garner (the guy who got put in a chokehold in NY and died) is a pretty good example; the ME report ruled the death a homicide, meaning that even though the guy's health contributed, someone else caused his death. Whether that can be prosecuted as a murder (or a criminal act in general) is a separate question.
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Someone mentioned this a few hundred pages back, but isn't it generally illegal to leave the state while you are a murder suspect? I suppose the issue here is that according to PD, Wilson is not a suspect. Release conditions are set after charges are filed, which include stuff like not leaving the state. Before that happens, he can travel around as he likes. I assume the PD is (understandably) worried about his / his family's safety.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Suspects can generally request to appear before the grand jury and the grand jurors can decide whether they want to hear from that person or not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:"police say a thing" is a pretty reasonable headline though? Yeah I know this thread desperately wants to hear that the guy was actually just holding a bible and a UNICEF box when the crazed lunatic cop gunned him down but there's not really anything wrong with that article. It's not very precise, but "Myers fired before being shot" is a catchier/shorter headline than "Lab finds particulate matter consistent with a nearby gunshot" (which is what GSR is). Ultimately I don't know that it makes much difference, since that shooting seemed pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Which iteration of the shooting? By the fourth or fifth revision, they managed to get most of the obvious impossibilities out. Turns out he didn't jump out of the bushes, on account of there being none. There was a ton of really creative writing about how young Mr. Meyers kept pulling the trigger after his gun jammed, and only then did Officer Goodcop sigh and raise his The story seems consistent throughout - Myers fired at the officer chasing him, the officer returned fire and killed him, fortunately nobody else got hurt, investigators found his gun and some shell casings at the scene and are now going through various lab tests.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:That's an excellent question. Given that it's hard to believe they are afraid a white cop won't get a fair trial, the obvious reason seems to be, "We actually think he did something wrong, and we can't afford to have it proven in court." It's being presented to the grand jury and it's up to them, at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:Allowing a defendant to testify in his own grand jury proceeding is all but unheard of. It is by far the weirdest detail in all this. I can't imagine why a prosecutor (who is, on paper, in the business of getting grand juries to back his indictments) would ever allow a defendant to do that. In my jurisdiction defendants have the right to request to appear, and failing to relay the request to the grand jury is a good way to get remanded. I'd imagine MO is similar. (The grand jurors can always say no, and usually do.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
fosborb posted:It is still legal, but it is certainly not "by the book." It's unusual, but then a trial in this case would involve an unusual amount of ethical/media scrutiny. In a world where Mike Nifong and Andrew Thomas got disbarred, I could see the county attorney proceeding this way to avoid the appearance of impropriety - nobody can accuse the prosecution of overcharging, undercharging, withholding exculpatory evidence, giving the grand jury a cursory glance at the evidence, and so forth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:The prosecution is not required to divulge exculpatory evidence during grand jury proceedings. Not generally, though you do have to tell them about "clearly exculpatory" evidence, and then obviously Brady takes over post-indictment. (Standard disclaimer that I don't practice in MO but things are probably similar in broad strokes.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:If the prosecutor doesn't believe a crime has been committed, then the grand jury is not going to overrule him. If the prosecutor doesn't believe a crime's been committed, he just declines to prosecute, and that's that. If the prosecutor opts to move forward, the grand jury is the way to do that. For some sense of scale, an average presentation in my state takes twenty to thirty minutes. Even split into once-weekly chunks, several months of evidence is extraordinarily thorough, and probably includes a great deal of stuff not released to the public. Whether or not you hand them a draft indictment, they'll still vote and come back with whatever charges they think are appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can you give an example of this sort of thing happening and working out the way you describe? Here, the condensed process goes like this: evidence is presented, prosecutor prepares a draft indictment, grand jury votes on the draft indictment. They can approve all or some or none of the charges, or ask for different or additional charges if they want (which they do sometimes). In Wilson's case, I recall someone saying they hadn't made a charging decision because the investigation wasn't done when they started presenting, but I don't know how that process is ultimately going to look. In any event, the grand jurors would still get to indict (or not) however they wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So, to the first part, this is a no? None of this is what I asked from you. I didn't ask what the process was, I understand the process. I wanted an example of a situation where a grand jury were not presented with charges and still indicted. I think an example or two of this would be very useful moving the conversation forward. I'm looking for some actual example here, not hypotheticals and speculation. You asked if grand jurors ever come up with charges on their own, and I told you that yes, this is a thing that happens. The proceeding itself is secret, so you likely won't find transcripts on Google. In the Wilson case, it's not clear to me that this would be necessary. If the reason prosecutors hadn't made a charging decision was that the investigation wasn't done when this started, and they were presenting evidence as it came in, it may be that the evidence all gets presented and then they follow all the usual steps. If not, it doesn't change the role of the grand jury either way. The prosecutor presents the case and provides guidance on the law; the grand jury makes the decision.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I think this part is a good idea, at least. The part about it being recorded isn't necessarily unusual, depending on how they do things. Grand juries here all have court reporters and the transcripts are routinely made available to defense attorneys so they can challenge them if need be. Asking to make all of the information public if there's no indictment seems like a good idea, though, since they're looking at a lot of evidence the public doesn't have. Not sure if a court would actually let him do it, this already being the worst-kept secret in Missouri.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What's taking so long? I thought this was supposed to come out Monday? There's no hard deadline. The prosecutor can estimate based on how much evidence is left, but the grand jurors control how long the presentation / deliberations take. They'll announce it when they're done, I'd imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:In the event that there is no indictment, can it still be brought to court? Failure to indict in a grand jury hearing doesn't gently caress things up like double jeopardy, right? Jeopardy doesn't attach at the grand jury stage, so theoretically there's no reason you couldn't go back to another panel for a do-over. You wouldn't, as a practical matter, and a no-bill here would end things at the state level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:There is a world of difference between "Here are some different charges and their meanings," and "These are the charges I wish you to indict on." It'd make little to no practical difference. They deliberate and vote the same.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except normally a prosecutor gets whatever they want from a grand jury. The reason this usually happens isn't because grand jurors are helpless and drooling in the face of dashing, brilliant prosecutors; it's because the standard of proof is relatively low and charging attorneys get pretty good at reviewing evidence and deciding what has a chance at trial and what doesn't. Historically the grand jury is an independent investigative body, and the prosecutor is there to offer guidance. In practice the relationship doesn't always look that way, and so people misunderstand how the GJ fits into the puzzle (and the role of a prosecutor in general, really). I think that's part of what's causing the disconnect in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The case would still be given to this guy anyway, wouldn't it? Bob McCulloch wouldn't actually present the case to the GJ or do the trial. He would supervise and direct the attorneys who did, because he runs the show, but the case would probably be handled by a senior deputy with substantial homicide experience. This is probably common in (and has been my experience with) large jurisdictions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I actually am one of the few people in this thread who isn't necessarily ascribing nefarious motives to the DA, but I still think he should have recused himself. Specifically because of the "cop dad was shot by black man" issue. Part of an effective system of justice is public faith in the fairness of the system. I don't think his dad being shot in the line creates the appearance of unfairness, personally. There are people protesting about it, but those people are going to protest no matter what happens because they're angry with the situation in general, not necessarily because they're familiar with the mechanics of criminal procedure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:Am I missing something or isn't the DOJ report only supposed to look at the Brown shooting from the perspective of prosecuting under federal civil rights law, and not the standards that would've been used in a civil or criminal case in the state justice system? Right. The DOJ looks at the likelihood of conviction under federal civil rights law by the US attorney, which is a different (and more difficult) case than the county prosecutor would have to prove under Missouri state law. Either way the case against Wilson has never been very strong, but obviously the report has different things to say about the department as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I have a theory. Could it be possible that the prosecutor of Darren Wilson sabotaged his own case because he has to maintain a good working relationship with the police or otherwise the police will sabotage other cases? From the sound of things, the prosecutor was acting like a defense attorney. Not really, though certainly a lot of people are dreaming up conspiracy theories. Fundamentally it's just not a very good case; I think you could show it to a bunch of grand juries and some might indict and some might not. You'd probably get an acquittal at trial in any event.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why? Admitting to targeting and killing a police officer in a capital-punishment state is generally a bad idea. Edit: Turns out they were wounded, not killed. That's good to hear.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:He didn't kill anybody and there's no such crime as "premeditated assault." One got shot in the face and I thought I remembered reading he had been killed; hence the edit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 00:22
|
|