OT: Live look-in at campus protesters

[moytoy12]

FYI: I learned on my trip to Wichita that Salina is pronounced with the "eye" sound. The more you know!

You're welcome.

[DeSmetBilliken]

My mistake hsmith. And no, I do not practice criminal law. Just took Crim Pro 1 in law school and studied the same material to pass the bar exam, both of which didn't cover grand juries. Also apparently coupled that with a mistaken rememberance from my studying for the MPRE.

And I didn't go to law school at SLU, so those were not my professors.

[hsmith19]

It's true that the majority of states have a sort of bare minimum requirement that the PA present certain types of exculpatory evidence if he takes the case to a GJ. So that might be what you remember from the MPRE. Missouri doesn't follow the majority rule, though. We follow the federal rule, in which the PA is under no obligation to make the suspect's case for him before the GJ.

[DeSmetBilliken]

It's true that the majority of states have a sort of bare minimum requirement that the PA present certain types of exculpatory evidence if he takes the case to a GJ. So that might be what you remember from the MPRE. Missouri doesn't follow the majority rule, though. We follow the federal rule, in which the PA is under no obligation to make the suspect's case for him before the GJ.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't go to law school in Missouri, so if the MPRE went with majority rules, there's a good chance that's what I learned. For state specific rules, I'd have to compare MO and IL.

[Clock_Tower]

Cool statement, after six paragraphs of political material.

You seem to respect and know a ton about Bob McCulloch, except how to spell his name.

To keep this one from going deeper into ugly political territory, I'll leave it at this (there are so many falsehoods and such a strong bias in your post, it's just not worth it anymore) - many of you could really use an outside perspective. The way this is perceived in St. Louis and the way it is perceived nationally (and internationally) seems to be very different. This is going to go down as an embarrassing historical moment for my hometown.

Typical Pistol.

Half cocked opinions by you which prompted this which are false/misleading.

Personal attacks on me in response based upon a spelling mistake, me have too strong of a bias (guess that means not agreeing with you) and me providing counter support to YOUR false political statements. Even HSmith who apparently shares your end result states you are way off base upon Bob McCulloch not recusing himself.

Again, typical. No acknowledgement of your own mistakes in your posts. Then, sweep it under the rug and no further political statements should be made after you speak? Grow up.

[Pistol]

Typical Clock.

I have to read your posts a few times to understand your meaning, given how poorly you write: "me have too strong of a bias," for example, or using "which" twice in a sentence fragment without any punctuation.

Again, typical - no acknowledgement of your own mistakes in your posts.

Anyway, Clock, would you mind actually pointing out my half-cocked opinions, false statements, and mistakes? Be sure to also say why they're wrong.

T. Hanks.

[Clock_Tower]

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.

HSmith.

I simply meant they believe that Bob McCulloch handled the entire Michael Brown situation relatively well. Were mistakes possibly made? Sure. Would hindsight suggest other things be done instead? Possibly. Laughingstock? Hardly.

Is Pistol completely off base with comments that everything McCulloch did is wrong with his crazy statement:

"Even worse, my wife is a lawyer so a lot of people we know and associate with here are also in the legal profession. Their universal response to the way McCulloch handled everything is that he did everything wrong - made it a much longer ordeal than was necessary, acted like a defense attorney instead of a prosecutor, impeded the grand jury (not to mention should have been replaced with a special prosecutor due to conflict of interest) - basically made an indictment impossible in a case with a lot of ambiguity that clearly should have gone to trial. To legal professionals, this was shocking - indictments typically take very little time and effort, so this was highly unusual - and reflects very poorly on the St. Louis area."

Yes. Pistol is way off.

As to the legal details, I personally believe/accept the position that as long as the corrections were made and the right law given to the grand jury prior to deciding that the mistakes can and were corrected. Now, why did McCulloch give the bad law/instruction early on? I cannot say.

But getting back to the big picture, I can honestly say that

1. the media completely got the story wrong. Yes, MIchael Brown was an unarmed black man but he also robbed and bullied a store owner to do drugs, he assaulted a police offer and tried to take his gun and he was deadly shot.

2. Except for Pistol from his couch in Cincinnati, the rest of us had trouble telling which were peaceful protesters and which were the numerous rioters who burned down 20 to 30 buildings and who then highjacked the "peaceful" protest on South Grand and broke This wasn't a few bad apples: this was many reaching from tens to a hundred or more over the various nights.

3. The heavily armored police show of force was not well received locally or nationally.

4. The uncontrolled riots and looting were shameful and destructive to their fellow, mostly minority owned businesses.

5. SLU did a better job with the protesters but the situations were not the same.

[hsmith19]

The only thing I disagree with Pistol on is that McCulloch had a conflict of interest. It's true McCulloch has especially deep ties to the County PD (not just his late father), but the balance PAs have to strike between working with cops and maintaining a degree of independence from them is a political question that I think is best dealt with at the ballot box. If the people in the County are tired of his deep ties to the PD, they should vote him out of office. Frankly, I would be surprised if he gets another term after this one considering the demographic shifts going on right now. I don't blame him for not recusing himself; deciding what cases to charge is what his constituents elected him to do. I just think he made a real cluster@$#% of it. I support the proposals for a new law calling for a special prosecutor totally independent from the local police force to be appointed to investigate all officer-involved shooting incidents, but that's really a debate for another day.

On the other hand, I totally agree with Pistol that choosing the "investigative" grand jury route prolonged the crisis and made our region look even worse than we already did during our stay in the national spotlight. You don't have to absolve the rioters of responsibility for their actions to recognize that dragging out the ordeal for three extra months only to have it inevitably blow up again was unnecessary and counterproductive. I think McCulloch was probably sincere in trying to quell the outrage by handing the matter over to the grand jury. I just think he was sorely misguided to think that would make things better rather than worse.

McCulloch was in effect trying to have it both ways, and people recognized that for what it was. If he had conducted a normal investigation and announced his conclusion (that there was not sufficient evidence to support a charge), I would have had no complaints. The onus would've been on Nixon to appoint a special PA if he didn't think McCulloch's office handled the investigation properly. Instead, McCulloch pretended to be impartial throughout the months long ordeal and refused to state a position on whether he thought the evidence supported a charge ("well, we'll let the grand jury decide," etc.). All the while his office controlled the grand jury process (as it always does, and as it's supposed to) to make sure it reached the conclusion McCulloch's office had long ago reached--there was not evidence to support a charge. Then when the decision is announced he comes out of the closet and serves as an advocate for Wilson, explaining why there was not sufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause. That whole charade strikes me as very dishonest, unnecessarily so, even if McCulloch really was motivated by nothing other than wanting to control the outrage he knew his decision was going to bring about.

As for Michael Brown, the incident at the convenience store is mostly irrelevant. But I will say this--the tape makes it clear he was guilty of misdemeanor stealing, but his shove of the shopkeeper as he exited the store is pretty low on the "force" spectrum. If I had that case and Brown was charged with robbery, I would be very tempted to take it to trial, especially in front of an urban jury. I think reasonable jurors could differ as to whether his force rose to the level that a charge of robbery as opposed to petty theft would require. I have pled similar felony charges down to misdemeanors when the defendants were (like Brown) unarmed, young, and had no prior felony record. It's ironic to me that the same people who spent months saying we ought to respect the judicial process before pronouncing Wilson as guilty of anything are now jumping to the legal conclusion that Brown committed a robbery. He never had the opportunity to stand trial for the felony he has now been convicted of in the popular imagination.

All of that is really tangential to the issue McCulloch's office and the grand jury faced--the relevant question is whether Wilson had justification for firing the fatal shots at Brown at the moment he fired them. What went on at the convenience store and what went on during the struggle in the car become immaterial if you believe Brown was surrendering at the time the fatal shots were fired. I think it would've been tough for McCulloch or anyone else to get a felony conviction against Wilson at trial (mostly because it is almost always nearly impossible to convict a cop of anything in cases like this). But I think the people who claim to be so sure that Brown got what he deserved are every bit as out of touch with the actual facts of the case as the people who say Wilson is clearly a cold-blooded murderer. Leaving out the obvious liars and tall tale-tellers, there were credible eyewitnesses who differed on what was going on at the pivotal moment. The physical evidence (in spite of McCulloch's best efforts to suggest otherwise at the press conference) cannot by itself prove whether Brown was surrendering or bull-rushing or something in between at the moment the fatal shots were fired.

To me, it might have been worth putting the case in front of a jury in a public trial, even though I think there's almost no way Wilson would've been convicted. I understand the counter-argument that that would accomplish nothing but wasting taxpayer money and putting on a show trial just to appease angry members of the public (and yes, some of them violent). But the thing is, McCulloch's course of action brought us the worst of both worlds. It was essentially a trial on the issue of guilt held in secret. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on presenting the case to the grand jury when he knew he didn't want to charge the guy with anything. All to appease people who were angry (some of whom had already started to loot and burn buildings). And that charade successfully appeased no one. Everyone who was already angry about police brutality and about broader issues connected to race and the criminal justice system recognized the charade for what it was.

[Cowboy]

-for the non-lawyers among us, or at least me, how would you define the legal difference between stealing and robbery?

[hsmith19]

Robbery is stealing by force or threat of force. Shoving a shopkeeper out of the way certainly can = force, but when there are no no weapons, no injuries, and only minimal physical contact I would certainly try at the very least to plead the case down. It's the difference between a misdemeanor and a class B felony. Huge in terms of sentencing and impact on your life, especially for an 18-year-old kid without a felony record.

[Cowboy]

Robbery is stealing by force or threat of force. Shoving a shopkeeper out of the way certainly can = force, but when there are no no weapons, no injuries, and only minimal physical contact I would certainly try at the very least to plead the case down. It's the difference between a misdemeanor and a class B felony. Huge in terms of sentencing and impact on your life, especially for an 18-year-old kid without a felony record.

-thank you

[MB73]

the prosecutor was brilliant.

he demonstrated superior leadership, the grand jury ruled and squashed the prevailing lies that the locals, the agenda driven outsiders, and the one sided media had promoted shamelessly.

the forensic evidence and statements from credible witnesses showed the officer to be innocent.

in so doing, he saved the ugliness of a long trial, possibly 18 months of potential further disruption and violence in the region, and who knows, another invasion of our campus.

if they invaded slu for no reason, where would be next?

did anyone on this board want another 18 months of what happened here?

glad he knew what needed to be done for both the truth and the greater good.

[BigMouthBilliken]

To someone with knowledge in law and the justice system,

Does qualified immunity only come into play during a trial or can a trial be avoided altogether if the officer's statements portray the image that he/she acted reasonably?

[billikenfan05]

Robbery is stealing by force or threat of force. Shoving a shopkeeper out of the way certainly can = force, but when there are no no weapons, no injuries, and only minimal physical contact I would certainly try at the very least to plead the case down. It's the difference between a misdemeanor and a class B felony. Huge in terms of sentencing and impact on your life, especially for an 18-year-old man without a felony record.

Fixed it for you and wouldn't you say by committing the crime he impacted his own life?

[Clock_Tower]

The only thing I disagree with Pistol on is that McCulloch had a conflict of interest. It's true McCulloch has especially deep ties to the County PD (not just his late father), but the balance PAs have to strike between working with cops and maintaining a degree of independence from them is a political question that I think is best dealt with at the ballot box. If the people in the County are tired of his deep ties to the PD, they should vote him out of office. Frankly, I would be surprised if he gets another term after this one considering the demographic shifts going on right now. I don't blame him for not recusing himself; deciding what cases to charge is what his constituents elected him to do. I just think he made a real cluster@$#% of it. I support the proposals for a new law calling for a special prosecutor totally independent from the local police force to be appointed to investigate all officer-involved shooting incidents, but that's really a debate for another day.

On the other hand, I totally agree with Pistol that choosing the "investigative" grand jury route prolonged the crisis and made our region look even worse than we already did during our stay in the national spotlight. You don't have to absolve the rioters of responsibility for their actions to recognize that dragging out the ordeal for three extra months only to have it inevitably blow up again was unnecessary and counterproductive. I think McCulloch was probably sincere in trying to quell the outrage by handing the matter over to the grand jury. I just think he was sorely misguided to think that would make things better rather than worse.

McCulloch was in effect trying to have it both ways, and people recognized that for what it was. If he had conducted a normal investigation and announced his conclusion (that there was not sufficient evidence to support a charge), I would have had no complaints. The onus would've been on Nixon to appoint a special PA if he didn't think McCulloch's office handled the investigation properly. Instead, McCulloch pretended to be impartial throughout the months long ordeal and refused to state a position on whether he thought the evidence supported a charge ("well, we'll let the grand jury decide," etc.). All the while his office controlled the grand jury process (as it always does, and as it's supposed to) to make sure it reached the conclusion McCulloch's office had long ago reached--there was not evidence to support a charge. Then when the decision is announced he comes out of the closet and serves as an advocate for Wilson, explaining why there was not sufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause. That whole charade strikes me as very dishonest, unnecessarily so, even if McCulloch really was motivated by nothing other than wanting to control the outrage he knew his decision was going to bring about.

As for Michael Brown, the incident at the convenience store is mostly irrelevant. But I will say this--the tape makes it clear he was guilty of misdemeanor stealing, but his shove of the shopkeeper as he exited the store is pretty low on the "force" spectrum. If I had that case and Brown was charged with robbery, I would be very tempted to take it to trial, especially in front of an urban jury. I think reasonable jurors could differ as to whether his force rose to the level that a charge of robbery as opposed to petty theft would require. I have pled similar felony charges down to misdemeanors when the defendants were (like Brown) unarmed, young, and had no prior felony record. It's ironic to me that the same people who spent months saying we ought to respect the judicial process before pronouncing Wilson as guilty of anything are now jumping to the legal conclusion that Brown committed a robbery. He never had the opportunity to stand trial for the felony he has now been convicted of in the popular imagination.

All of that is really tangential to the issue McCulloch's office and the grand jury faced--the relevant question is whether Wilson had justification for firing the fatal shots at Brown at the moment he fired them. What went on at the convenience store and what went on during the struggle in the car become immaterial if you believe Brown was surrendering at the time the fatal shots were fired. I think it would've been tough for McCulloch or anyone else to get a felony conviction against Wilson at trial (mostly because it is almost always nearly impossible to convict a cop of anything in cases like this). But I think the people who claim to be so sure that Brown got what he deserved are every bit as out of touch with the actual facts of the case as the people who say Wilson is clearly a cold-blooded murderer. Leaving out the obvious liars and tall tale-tellers, there were credible eyewitnesses who differed on what was going on at the pivotal moment. The physical evidence (in spite of McCulloch's best efforts to suggest otherwise at the press conference) cannot by itself prove whether Brown was surrendering or bull-rushing or something in between at the moment the fatal shots were fired.

To me, it might have been worth putting the case in front of a jury in a public trial, even though I think there's almost no way Wilson would've been convicted. I understand the counter-argument that that would accomplish nothing but wasting taxpayer money and putting on a show trial just to appease angry members of the public (and yes, some of them violent). But the thing is, McCulloch's course of action brought us the worst of both worlds. It was essentially a trial on the issue of guilt held in secret. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on presenting the case to the grand jury when he knew he didn't want to charge the guy with anything. All to appease people who were angry (some of whom had already started to loot and burn buildings). And that charade successfully appeased no one. Everyone who was already angry about police brutality and about broader issues connected to race and the criminal justice system recognized the charade for what it was.

Appreciate your thoughtful insight. Much of what you state, I actually agree with. At the same time, I fundamentally disagree with you about Bob McCulloch's options. With the extent of the public pressure being exerted the the protesters, there is absolutely no way (from a practical standpoint) that Bob McCulloch could state that he conducted his own investigation, decided not to prosecute and have the story end there. You admit that you would have had no complaints, and I believe you, but that would have made things even worse: a government cover-up, no grand jury, no preliminary hearing -- no public involvement. This is America - we use juries and grand juries -- not back room deals.. This approach would have made St. Louis and Bob McCulloch's office a true laughingstock. In short, I believe you are underestimating the need for public involvement. And not only can I not agree with your comments that the grand jury proceedings were a charade but also I cannot agree that St. Louis would be better off with either a closed internal investigation or with an 18 month public trial and that comes with it. Furthermore, the whole purpose of the grand jury is to have the public involved (grand jurors) yet to keep things private (including the rights of target/would be defendant -- Officer Wilson) so that he doesn't have to pay Thousands or Millions of dollars to defend -- or "prove" his innocence.

The Prosecuting Attorney in Florida chose not to prosecute in the Travor Martin case and look what happened -- the pressure to indict only grew, the local/state authorities were ridiculed, charges of racism grew even though George Zimmerman was Hispanic -- remember the new term invented by the national media of :white hispanic?", the federal authorities moved in, the state/local authorities were thrown out, a long, nasty race driven public trial was conducted, Mr. Zimmerman's life was destroyed in the process and, after all these events, Zimmerman was acquitted but still was a big loser by those events. In the Michael Brown proceedings, the grand jury proceedings sure helped Officer Wilson and his family, did appease the silent majority - and making the proceedings public, immediately and in full was also smart - and did spare St. Louis all the negatives of a long, race driven, damaging public trial proceeding -- and for what, to acquit Officer Wilson in the end as you suggest?

Sorry, but I believe Bob McCulloch got things right.

Laughingstock? I think not. What support do you have no was appeased? Aside from discussions brought about by the statute on SLU, I'd suggest that the grand jury proceedings put a just and proper closure to these events. America accepts decisions by public -- and rightfully so.