The Grand Jury system is rigged. That is all you need to know. What a joke. nt

[Logical]

[Recursion]

1. Yes, but generally in the other direction

But, then, the DA here specifically said he wasn't "presenting his strongest case" (which is all he is required to do) but "presenting all the evidence" (which isn't really what a Grand Jury is for).

[Logical]

2. Yes, you are 100% correct.Non-Cops get indited. Cops do not. nt

[bettyellen]

4. it sounds like he carefully edited what the grand jury heard

i thought he said he didn't call witnesses he did not deem credible.

[Recursion]

5. We don't know, but his claim was that he had every witness who had given a statement testify

But then again we don't know, and we may never know.

[bettyellen]

9. really? I could have sworn he said they ruled out some testimony, hmmm.

he meandered I noticed, going on a lot about many witnesses who were discredited, and wondered- did they discredit them in front of the GJ?

[Recursion]

11. That's a good question. I don't know whether he means "I didn't find them credible so they didn't

testify" or "they testified and the GJ didn't find them credible".

[bettyellen]

12. I was sure he said early on that they did not present every witness.

the doc dump will be interesting. I feel like we didn't hear one new thing that wasn't leaked last month.

[Recursion]

13. Thanks; I had heard the opposite but that was a while ago

We'll see, I guess...

[bettyellen]

14. they said they planned to show all the evidence, so I was shocked to hear that....

but if anything he was vague. He started to go on about all the lying witnesses after that. it was bizarre.

[X_Digger]

21. I think it was more a case of, "We took a statement from Joe Smith, but we can't find Joe Smith...

.. at the address he provided, so we couldn't present his testimony to the GJ."

Apparently they had the FBI trying to find some of these folks who gave statements. Maybe they gave false names or wrong addresses intentionally. (Attention-seekers, maybe?)

[Recursion]

23. Or people who don't want to give their real names and addresses to cops

Maybe they have warrants out, or maybe they just don't trust cops (particularly if they just saw one shoot a kid)...

[X_Digger]

25. Could be, just as plausible. n/t

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Did serve once and

the DA runs the show. Old saying,if a DA can't bring a bill then he should resign. Very controlled environment inside the GD hearing room. Federal Grand Juries are totally different as to the Q&A by Jurors. Local GD's are much like any court Jury. What you see and hear is all you get to make a decision.

[Logical]

6. Sounds pretty one sided. nt

[X_Digger]

8. Depends on the state. A Texas GJ is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

I've served once on a TX GJ- twice a week for 4 months or so- and we had power to ask that interviews be conducted, evidence be collected, etc. None of this swallowing what the PA presented and nothing else.

We ran that prosecuting attorney into the ground, and pounded him on all the charges he made.

We no-billed about 75% of the items brought before us (including a couple of petty possession charges).

[Kalidurga]

7. Our whole system is rigged and it's been rigged for centuries.

[gollygee]

10. +1

[Jenoch]

15. In regular jury trials,

many times the case is decided in the Voir Dire process, that is, jury selection. In the case of the grand jury system, the people on this particular grand jury were seated last May, months before the incident in Ferguson happened.

[Logical]

17. But the evidence presented is controlled by the State only. Rigged. nt

[Jenoch]

18. Who else should present evidence to a grand jury?

Should the defendant's legal team present evidence as well?

[Logical]

19. I would have no problem with Michael Brown's attorney presenting evidence. nt

[davidn3600]

24. The state still has to put on the trial

That's simply how the criminal justice system works in America, and pretty much any other modern country. The government is the prosecution.

I can't think of any legal system where the victim's attorneys act as prosecutors in a criminal trial. It's just not done that way.

[Logical]

27. Simple question, could the prosecutor have gotten an indictment if he wanted to? Nt

[Logical]

20. You do know that prosecutors do not like pissing off the police, correct?

[Nevernose]

22. It effectively was

Which is why so many of us are saying the system is rigged. The DA didn't even need a grand jury, and he sure as hell could have gotten an indictment if he wanted one.

[Recursion]

26. Back in the 1800's the victim or his family would present to a grand jury

They also had to prosecute the case if the jury returned a true bill.

Not sure I want to go back to that, but I think we are seeing a weakness of the public prosecutor model that replaced it here.

[logosoco]

16. St. Louis is not going to be able to live this down.

We were already sitting in a bad spot with the Dred Scott decision.

But hopefully tonight, here and everywhere people are going to stand up. It is time to fight this system!!!!!!!!!!!