Just curious what the consensus is.
Just curious what the consensus is.
Unless new material/forensic evidence is revealed, I would say no.
Crimea is illegally occupied by Russia
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
No prosecutor who wants to stay one would tank a grand jury hearing.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
throw is maybe a charged term.
it is interesting however that there is still to this day-- months later--- a seeming controversy over the distance that Brown fled/died from the vehicle.
At the end of the day though, it wasn't up to the prosecutor, the grand jury decided to return a no bill on any of the possible charges. Were he to really throw it, he could of reached for a extreme charge.
1. As far as I know, this wasn't a trial - grand juries review the presentation of a selection of evidence usually designed to provide the very minimum to secure an indictment. Trials happen in courts of law, with judges, counsel for the prosecution and the defense, and usually empaneled juries. That was not the case here.
2. It seems apparent to me that the prosecutor had no intention of calling for a grand jury hearing based on the evidence he had and the lack of a crime to prosecute. He was forced into it politically.
3. As a result of being forced into a sham grand jury process, the prosecutor threw everything at the panel, including all the exculpatory evidence and in effect presented the defense case that would likely be presented had it gone to trial. The prosecutor had no interest in getting a phony indictment and then getting blown out of the water during a court trial where he would have been left with one side calling him a failure for not winning the case and the other side calling him a political hack for trying the case in the first place.
Justice was served. And in my view, more grand jury hearings should get to see the exculpatory evidence too to avoid a lot of unnecessary trials and expense to the system and innocent defendants.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.
He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.
He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.
His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.
His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.
His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.
Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
I don't know, I wasn't in there....