MB73 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 'lil pistol claims "many of you could use an outside perspective". like we all hang out on a street corner. he offers his wife's perspective in cincinnati. oh, thanks. look, little one, in my industry i have dozens of educated contacts across the land and it unfortunately has been a constant topic for almost 6 months, experienced left and right leaning individuals in healthcare from atlanta to dallas to sf to rochester (mn) to washington, you name it. the vast majority (including an african vp in atlanta) see a lie that was mass marketed until the uninformed believed it, driven by many non st. louis outsiders with an agenda, and that slu caved to the clear threats of an invading group of lawbreakers. we all know this is bad for st. louis and slu. many posters here feel the same way but in this day and age one cannot make their position clear on a pc matter lest there be consequences at one's place of employment. again, bad for slu, the statue is not an appropriate symbol at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The rioting was certainly embarrassing and makes for a strong visual aspect. I also have the capacity to separate well-intentioned peaceful protestors and scumbag looters and rioters. I wish more people could also make this separation. The "war zone" visual was equally - if not more strongly - created by the use of police forces with military-grade gear. It's a shame that there's not as strong a visual component for things like corrupt police or a rigged justice system. More people might get as worked up about that as property damage if it were accompanied by such strong images. Most people with a decent head on their shoulders can separate peaceful protestors and looters/rioters/etc but the media mainly covered the latter. There were two "war zone" visuals, one in August and one in November. While the visual may have been aided with police reactions to looting and rioting, in neither situation did police forces ever use military-grade gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_davola Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I think a lot of people can make the separation between peaceful protestors and the rioters...problem is, a lot of people and the media especially, can't decipher from a small percentage of corrupt police officers (Darren Wilson was not) and those that are good, law abiding police officers that do the job they are trained to do. Yeah, let's get visuals out there of the big bad police so the good cops can be lumped in with the few bad apples and get harassed more than they already are. If you don't think it hasn't gotten worse, just talk with officers in the city and county and they can tell you otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARon Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 If a bunch of old white bigots want to stop giving to the University......I say good riddance and I'll respect the University more for letting then go. And many in my generation feel the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Well, we all seem to know smart people who see this differently. I try to be as objective as possible. I'm genuinely interested to hear why a person with a legal background would be impressed with McCulloch's handling of this. I'm not sure how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of our legal system could see a prosecutor fail to get an indictment on this case, and proceed to justify at length his inability (refusal?) to get a grand jury to indict. I'd think there would be a lot of people in attendance at McCulloch's talk who'd like to ask him why he's so bad at his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Back to SLU and the statue: Does anyone know what it's going to be, where it's going to be, how it's going to be funded, and what it will be inscribed with? I still don't see why it's such a problem for some people. It was a huge moment for SLU, and the University handled it better than it was handled anywhere else. When confronted with protestors occupying SLU's campus, SLU's police didn't show up in riot gear, didn't call in the National Guard, didn't throw any tear gas, and just let them be, while making sure it didn't jeopardize the safety of students. Weird how it all worked out peacefully, eh? I'd love to see the SLU police acknowledged for the job they did. I wish what happened at SLU were a microcosm of what happened elsewhere. We'd all be a lot better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I learned in my criminal justice 101 class that the legal system is just, not fair. That makes me an expert on the subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Will we put up a statue for every group that protests on campus in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Will we put up a statue for every group that protests on campus in the future? Oooh, the slippery slope argument. I like it. Almost as good as the guy who asked if 100 homeless people could occupy campus and get whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samslu Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 One of the main problems with this country is if you disagree with someone people automatically go to name calling. Racist is the main one. Win the argument with facts and ideas. Continuing to call people who disagree with you racist is childish and unproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARon Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 One of the main problems with this country is if you disagree with someone people automatically go to name calling. Racist is the main one. Win the argument with facts and ideas. Continuing to call people who disagree with you racist is childish and unproductive. Yes, another problem is people hiding behind political correctness as a way to NOT call out bigotry when it is present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Oooh, the slippery slope argument. I like it. Almost as good as the guy who asked if 100 homeless people could occupy campus and get whatever they want. I mean I know it's not going to happen and it's a dumb argument, but I just don't want SLU's campus to turn into a go-to place to protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Mods, I was specifically told that no more mention of "racism" was to be tolerated in any form on this board. Please shut this down. Nothing is being accomplished Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Please guys, let's try to keep this discussion in a rational plane. If we keep the general rioting out of this discussion, and we keep Bob McCullough out of it as well, that is if we limit this discussion to the occupation of SLU as a civil rights protest and the actions taken by SLU, its president, faculty, and student body, we make this discussion a lot easier. Indeed, I believe that the actions of SLU as a University during this event were very much in line with the mission of the University and the Jesuit mission. The outcome of this event was peaceful, did not result in property damage or student injuries, and did not require the occupation of the campus by battalions of SWAT troopers or National Guard. I think we may all agree that this was a very satisfactory outcome to the occupation of SLU, an outcome we can all be proud of, and one that deserves to be kept in memory. Political and racial issues are thorny because the preconceptions held by lots and lots of people in both sides of the issue makes it difficult to deal rationally with the issues themselves. When an institution is faced with such a racial and politically charged situation, it needs to try to step away from these preconceptions, listen to the issues, and take action that is appropriate to the situation, follows its mission statement, and results in a positive outcome. I believe that is exactly what Dr. Pestello and SLU achieved. I also think this achievement deserves some physical manifestation in memory of the event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Yes, another problem is people hiding behind political correctness as a way to NOT call out bigotry when it is present. Bingo. The "PC" whine all too often means nothing more than that you're offended that somebody else is offended by something. Or even that you're offended by the mere possibility that somebody else out there might be offended by something. It results in the silliest kind of circular argument with no hope of anything constructive being discussed. The bigger problem is that people don't understand the different things that "racist" can mean. Racism is about more than just individual animus. People who have convinced themselves that racism is about people running around in white hoods get up in arms without even bothering to understand or educate themselves on the broader issues being discussed. But then again, many of those same people also deliberately resort to namecalling through use of words like "thug" and then try to convince others their namecalling and their choice of words has nothing to do with their own hostile and bigoted views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Fully agree hsmith19. Someone once wrote a book called "The Varieties of Religious Experience", sorry I cannot remember the name of the author. The thought has crossed my mind often during my life that the same kind of analysis applies to the varieties of anything else, from liberalism, to conservatism, to racism, etc... Internal biases built around many issues can manifest themselves in subtle ways and can indeed be present even when a person believes he/she is very impartial or open minded. It is generally very difficult to maintain a middle of the road point of view and not being waylayed by these internal biases which we all have in some degree or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Pistol. Yes. I do believe what I posted. A few comments: First, I am a SLU Law grad, have practiced law in St. Louis for 20 years, my family (4 lawyers) and my personal politics happen to be conservative/Republican but my law partners are big time liberals/Democrats -- and by that I mean they had been politicians and one remains a Democratic Party Chairperson. And naturally, their friends and colleagues also are liberals/Democratics. Further, they are from/live in North County and have personal knowledge and connections with "both sides" Second, every single attorney, judge, etc. I have spoken with have supported Bob McCullough and his Prosecuting Attorney's Office. While you and HSmith are certainly entitled to your opinions, I do suggest that both are contrary to the general consensus (conservative and liberal) her in St. Louis. And just to be clear, my comments include my law partners and their friends/colleagues with whom I am usually on opposite sides of all issues. Comments from certain members of the legal community in Cincinnati do not square with the legal community here in St. Louls. Third, the local reporting is most likely more detailed, more fair and more honest than the national reporting and therefore while I am saddened to hear the comments from Cincinnati I am also not really all that surprised because of the agendas of the national media. I can assure you that while there will always be disagreement between and among all groups (and certainly there are likely well respected members of the St. Louis County Bar Association, the Bar of Metropolitan St. Louis and the Missouri Bar who are critical of Bob McCullough) the vast majority support him and his office. Fourth, suggestions that McCullough should have recused himself are patently false and misguided. Bob McCullough suffered personal family tragedy -- death of family member/police office, but this argument can be made in EVERY case involving a police officer and/or shooting by a police officer. Frankly, this a weak argument that has been made previous cases and which was been determined to not be a conflict of interest in them or by the federal authorities in the Michael Brown case who also conducted a dual investigation. Fifth, one of my law partners is a former multiple grad of SLU undergrad, MBA and Law, was a member of the great soccer teams and their NCAA Tourney Champions, had been a long time donor to SLU, has a daughter attending SLU right now, had written to Dr. P/SLU during the protests and now has written again to Dr. P/SLU advising that he will never donate again. He is liberal democratic who actually donated to the school. You have been quite critical of guys like him and yet I find it ironic that you have not donated yourself and yet you claim a moral superiority to his opinion/choices. Put your SLU credentials up to his and I guarantee that yours will look quite small. Sixth, I am reluctant to post the above in that most of this is really not about me and is deviating from the purpose of this Board: SLU basketball. Guys like you should respect opposing opinions within the SLU community. And as a reminder, politics and religion really don't belong on this Board in that we are united by being die hard Billiken fans, there aren't enough of us and we need grow the masses and not attack each other, but since SLU was involved in the protests, since many SLU donors have taken positions that you find hard to believe/understand and since you have expressed comments about Bob McCullough and the forum to be at SLU, I believe the above should be considered. Clock: I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts, and am pleased to see that I am not the only one who can manage to practice law and still find the time and "energy" to type a complete sentence on an internet message board. I am genuinely curious what you mean by this bolded statement. I know many attorneys who "support" McCulloch and his office in terms of believing they are generally competent attorneys and generally want to see justice served. I have defended numerous cases his office has prosecuted, and generally agree with those conclusions myself. But I find it very hard to believe that any attorney could possibly support giving the grand jurors a statement of law that had been struck down by the Supreme Court 30 years prior, and then not catching the mistake for more than two months. This is not a question of political or social views, not a question of "political correctness," and not even a question of interpreting the law. Alizadeh gave the grand jurors bad law immediately before Wilson testified, and then did not correct herself until immediately before the grand jurors started deliberating. The only defense of this I have heard is that it really wasn't that big of a deal since it was corrected eventually, and only people who have never practiced criminal law in StLCo or anywhere else could possibly say that. Even if you think this was an innocent mistake, the legal standard for when lethal force is justified cuts to the very heart of the issue the grand jury was tasked with deciding. This was not an esoteric matter of procedure. McCulloch's office presented a legal standard that was completely wrong, and allowed them to sit on that while listening to the suspect's version of events. Again, I know many criminal attorneys (both prosecution and defense) that defend McCulloch and Alizadeh as talented trial lawyers and decent people, which begs the question of how they could have allowed this to happen. But of all the many criminal attorneys I know, I have not heard any of them even try to defend this blunder. You are forced to either conclude Alizadeh and the rest of that office was either totally incompetent or deliberately trying to mislead the grand jurors. All of that is before getting into the other problems I personally have with his handling of the case--namely 1) presenting the case to the grand jury without recommending charges, rather than allowing his office to serve its function by determining whether filing charges was warranted, 2) allowing the suspect's counsel to be present in the grand jury room while evidence was being presented, and 3) presenting testimony from witnesses he has since admitted he knew were lying. None of that, by the way, has anything to do with McCulloch's father being a cop killed in the line of duty, and I agree that the calls for him to recuse himself on those grounds are not fair. That line has been popular among members of the general public for many years, but I have not heard it from any of the attorneys who have criticized McCulloch's handling of the Wilson case (and I do know many of those). I think reasonable people can disagree on the propriety of the first point, and it is true that the "investigative grand jury" process has been used before by McCulloch as well as prosecutors in other states to deal with officer shootings. I just disagree with it. But I'd also be interested in hearing how you and your friends can possibly defend presenting perjured testimony to a grand jury, which unambiguously amounts to an ethical violation and a criminal offense for any attorney under the law and the rules of professional conduct. It's a significant part of a prosecutor's job to determine which witnesses' testimony could potentially have probative value for the grand jury, and McCulloch point blank admitted he knew one witness in particular got her story "straight out of the newspaper." The only defense I've heard McCulloch make is that he knew some people would criticize him regardless of what he did. I am still not sure how he saw that as a reason to present testimony from witnesses he knew offered no probative value whatsoever. If you know you're going to be criticized regardless, why give your opponents a legitimate reason to do so? Makes the opposite of sense to me, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Many folks like MB are too jaded by their contempt for the protesters to focus on the positive work by SLU. These folks are stuck in their my way or the highway approach to arguments. I agree with Old Guy, let's celebrate SLU. No, SLU isn't going to put up a statue for every protest. But if SLU's actions engender additional constructive talks on tough issues, then those actions should be celebrated. The all-or-nothing approach to debates/arguments between opposite viewpoints has become the destructive norm. I'm in favor of a university, our university, showing the willingness to engage tough and at times crude discourse, but ultimately facilitating in mostly a peaceful way some understanding (even if both sides still agree to disagree) between diametrically opposed voices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samslu Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Bingo. The "PC" whine all too often means nothing more than that you're offended that somebody else is offended by something. Or even that you're offended by the mere possibility that somebody else out there might be offended by something. It results in the silliest kind of circular argument with no hope of anything constructive being discussed. The bigger problem is that people don't understand the different things that "racist" can mean. Racism is about more than just individual animus. People who have convinced themselves that racism is about people running around in white hoods get up in arms without even bothering to understand or educate themselves on the broader issues being discussed. But then again, many of those same people also deliberately resort to namecalling through use of words like "thug" and then try to convince others their namecalling and their choice of words has nothing to do with their own hostile and bigoted views. If you knew me the last thing you would associate me with is the PC crowd. I think people are way to easily offended. Put the word "racist" where you have "thug" and I think that will express how people that have been unfairly called racists feel. I dont have a problem with calling a racist what they are but I do have a problem labeling a group of people racists ( or anything else) just because you disagree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Gentlemen, it's time to get your pay stubs out and head to Salina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 If you knew me the last thing you would associate me with is the PC crowd. I think people are way to easily offended. Put the word "racist" where you have "thug" and I think that will express how people that have been unfairly called racists feel. I dont have a problem with calling a racist what they are but I do have a problem labeling a group of people racists ( or anything else) just because you disagree with them. I wasn't really trying to direct it at you personally. But what I'm trying to say is that people who whine about others being "PC" are often doing the very thing they claim to be bothered by. It's all about being offended by what the other guy has to say, whether you call it political correctness or political incorrectness. Seems silly to me to pretend that one side of the political aisle or one side of any issue has the market cornered on that attitude and that debate tactic. I see what you mean about "racist" being used as a way to dismiss an idea or opinion without making a real argument. I agree it happens. But I also think it would be nice if we could talk about racism without people taking it on such a personal level (ie, the defensive "Who you calling racist?" reaction whenever somebody brings up racism as an abstract concept). I also think oldguy is absolutely right that all of us are typically not very conscious of our own biases. Not thinking of ourselves as prejudiced doesn't mean we don't look at big issues through a prejudiced lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samslu Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I wasn't really trying to direct it at you personally. But what I'm trying to say is that people who whine about others being "PC" are often doing the very thing they claim to be bothered by. It's all about being offended by what the other guy has to say, whether you call it political correctness or political incorrectness. Seems silly to me to pretend that one side of the political aisle or one side of any issue has the market cornered on that attitude and that debate tactic. I see what you mean about "racist" being used as a way to dismiss an idea or opinion without making a real argument. I agree it happens. But I also think it would be nice if we could talk about racism without people taking it on such a personal level (ie, the defensive "Who you calling racist?" reaction whenever somebody brings up racism as an abstract concept). I also think oldguy is absolutely right that all of us are typically not very conscious of our own biases. Not thinking of ourselves as prejudiced doesn't mean we don't look at big issues through a prejudiced lens. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Ok, I got sucked back in on this one. Here's a few thoughts: Well, we all seem to know smart people who see this differently. I try to be as objective as possible. I'm genuinely interested to hear why a person with a legal background would be impressed with McCulloch's handling of this. I'm not sure how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of our legal system could see a prosecutor fail to get an indictment on this case, and proceed to justify at length his inability (refusal?) to get a grand jury to indict. I'd think there would be a lot of people in attendance at McCulloch's talk who'd like to ask him why he's so bad at his job. I don't know if I would use the word "impressed" to describe my thoughts on this, but here goes. Generally, before pursuing an indictment, the prosecutor, frequently with the help of the police, conducts an investigation to determine if the evidence is there to pursue an indictment, and see if they think the evidence is there to get a conviction down the line. One example familiar to people here, during "The Situation" a few years ago, the Police and the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney conducted their investigation, and in the end, the CA determined that no charges would be pursued, likely due to lack of evidence to go forward. It has been my opinion/guess that the prosecutor's office looked into the evidence found in their investigation of the Ferguson shooting and determined that the evidence necessary to pursue this case further wasn't there. I'm not going to comment on that evidence because quite honestly, I read through 2 or 3 of the grand jury transcripts and realized that I read through deposition transcripts enough for work, so I didn't have a desire to read similar documents for leisure. I urged people to hold off making their "hot takes" until reviewing the evidence that was presented, and since I didn't read all of the evidence, I'm going to try to follow my own advice. Regardless, in many cases, I think a case that reached that determination of not enough to get a indictment or eventually a conviction would just go by the wayside, like in "The Situation" a few years ago. In this case, however, McCullogh decided to let it go to a grand jury. Maybe he thought a "no bill" would look better than the whole case not making it out of the prosecutor's office. I don't know which is better. Still, if that was the decision, to let it play out in the grand jury process, even though McCullogh was within his rights to just call it and say "We don't believe the evidence exists to charge Darren Wilson, it could make sense why there was no indictment. I would also add a few more thoughts, particularly with the comments I saw here and elsewhere saying that McCullogh sounded more like Wilson's defense attorney than a prosecutor. A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence that could exonerate the defendant. This isn't my opinion; it's in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. Sure, McCullogh mentioned that potentially exonerating evidence a lot in his "no indictment" press conference, and maybe that's where people got the idea that he sounded more like a defense attorney. Still, if that evidence existed, he had to disclose it. I don't know if people just wanted him to ignore that evidence, but that would not have ended well. For reference, look up the name Mike Nifong. He was the prosecutor for that Duke Lacrosse rape case a few years back. He tried to withhold exonerating evidence and got disbarred, held in contempt of court, and sued by the players he accused. Honestly, I don't know if McCullogh's method was the best way to go, but I don't have any glaring complaints either. Maybe an independent prosecutor would have been worth it, but who knows? I guess I'm given some assurance by the fact that my criminal procedure professor, whose opinion I greatly respect, did a TV interview in which he said that he thought that the law was applied correctly in the Ferguson case. As an aside, he didn't think it was applied correctly in the NYC "I can't breathe" case. Back to SLU and the statue: Does anyone know what it's going to be, where it's going to be, how it's going to be funded, and what it will be inscribed with? I still don't see why it's such a problem for some people. It was a huge moment for SLU, and the University handled it better than it was handled anywhere else. When confronted with protestors occupying SLU's campus, SLU's police didn't show up in riot gear, didn't call in the National Guard, didn't throw any tear gas, and just let them be, while making sure it didn't jeopardize the safety of students. Weird how it all worked out peacefully, eh? I'd love to see the SLU police acknowledged for the job they did. I wish what happened at SLU were a microcosm of what happened elsewhere. We'd all be a lot better off. I actually e-mailed Dr. Pestello after the news of the statue to express my concerns, and we had a nice, respectful exchange. All I can point out with the statue is that it is still in the development stages, and that it will not be "anti-police" or celebrate violence or lawlessness. There is a difference with the occupation at SLU and the events in Ferguson that led to the riot gear, tear gas, etc. From my recollection of watching the news coverage the night after the shooting in August, by the time I saw the police in riot gear on my TV screen, the Quick Trip, and maybe some other buildings, had already been burned. The looting had started. If you have that kind of stuff going on, you're putting the police on the ground in danger if you don't send them in with the extra protection. While I have suggested strongly that SLU should have removed the protestors from campus, I wouldn't have advocated tear gassing them out, or rolling down Spring or West Pine with armored cars unless the protestors had acted violently first. Even then, I'd like to think you could accomplish the removal without using the same tactics in Ferguson. I'm not going to post my e-mails with Dr. Pestello, but one takeaway was that I think SLU's actual mindset on this was somewhere in between my "get the protestors off the campus before they hurt a student" message and the "let's be compassionate and supportive of them because our mission says to do so" message. I don't feel that Pestello or other administrators did this an an endorsement of any cause. I think they felt backed into a difficult situation, took the option that they felt that was least likely to get them in the news, which they could justify under the school's mission, and hoped and prayed really hard that it worked. I've stated here several times that that probably wouldn't be the way I did it, but truthfully, if I was the SLU President, my way probably would have involved giving someone directives over the phone because I'd be off somewhere trying to get us into the Big East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 FYI: I learned on my trip to Wichita that Salina is pronounced with the "eye" sound. The more you know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I would also add a few more thoughts, particularly with the comments I saw here and elsewhere saying that McCullogh sounded more like Wilson's defense attorney than a prosecutor. A prosecutor has a duty to disclose evidence that could exonerate the defendant. This isn't my opinion; it's in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. Sure, McCullogh mentioned that potentially exonerating evidence a lot in his "no indictment" press conference, and maybe that's where people got the idea that he sounded more like a defense attorney. Still, if that evidence existed, he had to disclose it. I don't know if people just wanted him to ignore that evidence, but that would not have ended well. For reference, look up the name Mike Nifong. He was the prosecutor for that Duke Lacrosse rape case a few years back. He tried to withhold exonerating evidence and got disbarred, held in contempt of court, and sued by the players he accused. This is absolutely, 100% not true. A prosecutor has no duty to present every bit of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. The prosecution can present any evidence they choose to a grand jury, and withhold any evidence they choose from them. Missouri is even more lax than most states on this point. The only ethical constriction prosecutors are under is that they not present evidence they know or have good reason to believe is false (and ironically, McCulloch has admitted that his office presented testimony from witnesses they knew were lying). In typical grand jury cases, the prosecutor presents only testimony from the arresting officer and maybe one or two eyewitnesses that can offer testimony most damning to the suspect. It's also common for them to present written or recorded confessions from suspects when they have any, but it's rare for them to offer any evidence beyond that. Prosecutors typically present only the bare minimum needed to establish probable cause, which is quite a low burden. They are under no obligation at that stage in the process to present any evidence they might have come across that might help exonerate a defendant at trial. Only once probable cause has been found and the defendant is bound over to Circuit Court to stand trial does the prosecution have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Until charges are filed there is no such thing as a defendant, and there can be no duty of disclosure to defense counsel before the suspect is even facing charges. The Duke lacrosse prosecutor got in trouble because he withheld exculpatory evidence at trial. A grand jury is a completely different animal, and frankly I'm surprised to see an attorney fail to grasp this distinction. I assume that you must not handle many felony matters. Even then, the duty is one of disclosure; it doesn't obligate the prosecution to present the evidence himself. He's under no duty to make the defendant's case for him, even in front of the regular petit jury at trial. The prosecution is likewise not under any obligation to present affirmative defenses for the suspect, as McCulloch's office did here. Both self-defense and the fleeing felon rule are affirmative defenses. The defendant bears the burden of proving those at trial after the prosecution has made a prima facie case for a criminal offense. Here, McCulloch's office chose to pre-emptively present affirmative defenses (and evidence supporting them) to the grand jury without recommending any charges. That's how his office was acting like defense attorneys, and they were absolutely not under any obligation to do this. McCulloch chose to do this as part of his "investigative grand jury process," which his office treated as a de facto trial on the issue of guilt held in secret. This is totally different from the normal hearing on the issue of probable cause that a typical grand jury proceeding looks like. There are legitimate (or at least defensible) reasons that prosecutors sometimes do all of this when it comes to officer-involved shootings, but to say that he was under any kind of duty or obligation to do so is 100% false. If he had wanted to withhold exculpatory evidence until Wilson was bound over to stand trial on the charge, he could have. If he didn't want to do the defense attorneys' job for them by presenting affirmative defenses to the grand jury, he didn't have to. And after reading all of the grand jury transcripts, it is perfectly clear to me hat if McCulloch had wanted to get an indictment against Wilson, he could have. Once again, it's perfectly reasonable to defend McCulloch for not wanting to pursue charges against Wilson, but he very easily could've met the low burden of probable cause. It is extremely unusual to have the suspect's version of events told in front of the grand jury at all, much less have the suspect's version expounded upon and defended by the prosecution team. Honestly, I don't know if McCullogh's method was the best way to go, but I don't have any glaring complaints either. Maybe an independent prosecutor would have been worth it, but who knows? I guess I'm given some assurance by the fact that my criminal procedure professor, whose opinion I greatly respect, did a TV interview in which he said that he thought that the law was applied correctly in the Ferguson case. As an aside, he didn't think it was applied correctly in the NYC "I can't breathe" case. Do you mean Goldman or Anders Walker? Because what they both said in the interviews I saw is that it is always very difficult to convict officers of criminal offenses because the law is so pro-police . Goldman in particular also talked a lot about just how unusual McCulloch's evidence dump on the grand jury was: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/25/justice-in-ferguson-when-a-mountain-of-evidence-might-be-too-much/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.