• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

VanceMack said:
The prosecutor stated he allowed everyone to testify...including (and this is the part a lot of folks want to ignore) those that were quite obviously lying providing statement s AGAINST officer Wilson. His reasoning was that during a grand jury he wanted ALL the testimony in play.
Click to expand...

I'll post it again. The prosecutor is required, "SHALL" inform the jury when he knows a witness has lied during testimony
According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” The next sentence would seem to support disbarrment hearing for McColluch and other attorneys who knew witnesses were lying. 'If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal."
Click to expand...

also from Rule 4-4.3
Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process

[12] Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official, or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence, or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, Rule 4-3.3(b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure, if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.
Click to expand...
This is why McCulloch should be standing before a disbarrment hearing - he is REQUIRED to disclose his knowledge of false testimony - that doesn't mean to the media, a month after the legal proceedings
 
Somerville said:
You don't know what you say you know. As another poster on your side of the topic kept pointing out, the grand jury is a tribunal, which for some reason he thought justified the failure by the prosecutor to present evidence showing various witnesses were lying.
Click to expand...
The prosecutor pointed out that any number of 'witnesses' changed their stories or had stories that didn't match the physical evidence. The GJ heard from all of them. They then determined whose testimony was believable and whose was not.
 
Somerville said:
I'll post it again. The prosecutor is required, "SHALL" inform the jury when he knows a witness has lied during testimony


also from Rule 4-4.3
This is why McCulloch should be standing before a disbarrment hearing - he is REQUIRED to disclose his knowledge of false testimony - that doesn't mean to the media, a month after the legal proceedings
Click to expand...
How many times do you have to be told that something doesn't apply before it sinks in?

Again.
Do you not understand what you are reading?
1. I told you to consider context of what was being spoken about. You didn't.
2. I showed you what a "tribunal" is defined as. You ignored it.​
You have already been shown to be wrong on this.

You are quoting something that does not apply to the prosecutor during a GJ hearing.

You simply are not paying attention to what you are quoting and are obviously just mimicking what someone else has said on the interwebs.
What you are quoting applies to the Advocate

Had you paid attention you would have seen the complete title of what you are quoting and how it is divided which signifies to whom it applies.


Again.

"RULE 4-3.3: Advocate - Candor Toward THE TRIBUNAL"​
That is what you quoted. A rule for the advocate. :doh

This is how Tribunal is defined.
(m) "Tribunal" denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding, or a legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal decision directly affecting a party's interests in a particular matter.
Supreme Court Rules - Rule 4 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar and the Judiciary - Rules of Professional Conduct: Client-Lawyer Relationship - Terminology​

twit_010.jpg

twit_011.jpg

twit_012.jpg
 
Somerville said:
I'll post it again. The prosecutor is required, "SHALL" inform the jury when he knows a witness has lied during testimony


also from Rule 4-4.3
This is why McCulloch should be standing before a disbarrment hearing - he is REQUIRED to disclose his knowledge of false testimony - that doesn't mean to the media, a month after the legal proceedings
Click to expand...
I'll give your postings credence the second you start losing your mind over the false evidence offered that supports the position you believe to be true.
 
Somerville said:
You don't know what you say you know. As another poster on your side of the topic kept pointing out, the grand jury is a tribunal, which for some reason he thought justified the failure by the prosecutor to present evidence showing various witnesses were lying.
Click to expand...

How do you know McCulloch didn't present evidence that showed various witnesses were lying? The NPR article you posted didn't say that. Are you making an assumption that might not be fact? You say this in your OP:

There is no evidence in the documents released by the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office after the grand jury decision that McCulloch or anyone from his office ever told the jurors to regard any specific witness statements as less credible than others.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Have you reviewed all of the documents? Were you in the room with the Grand Jury?

In any case, it was the job of the Grand Jury to determine if any evidence is credible enough to warrant a trial...not the job of the prosecutor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom