How the National Bar Association responds to the grand Jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson.

[Playinghardball]

Judd Legum ✔ @JuddLegum
Follow
The only people questioning the grand jury process are crazy radicals. Oh, and the National Bar Association

7:36 AM - 25 Nov 2014

http://theobamadiary.com/

[merrily]

1. K and R. Thanks for this.

[MerryBlooms]

2. rec & kick

[gollygee]

3. Well they obviously don't know how the law works

/sarcasm

[johnnyreb]

4. Be aware that it's not the American Bar Association

Don't be caught unawares, that's all;

The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. It represents the interests of approximately 60,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and law students.The NBA is organized around 23 substantive law sections, 9 divisions, 12 regions and 80 affiliate chapters throughout the United States and around the world.
http://www.nationalbar.org/about-us.html

The American Bar Association is one of the world’s largest voluntary professional organizations, with nearly 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities. It is committed to doing what only a national association of attorneys can do: serving our members, improving the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, and advancing the rule of law throughout the United States and around the world.
http://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba.html

[gollygee]

5. Oh well their legal knowledge is obviously suspect.

/sarcasm

[MadDAsHell]

8. I would say it's very suspect...

Read the entire text of the statement, especially this part: "The grand jury’s decision confirms the fear that many expressed months ago — that a fair and impartial investigation would not happen."

This is a shitty decision, the grand jury got it wrong, but whether a fair and impartial investigation occurred isn't proven/disproven by whether we got the outcome we want, and to say so is terrible legal theory that I would expect from a layperson, not a legal mind.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Come on, now ...

This is a shitty decision, the grand jury got it wrong, but whether a fair and impartial investigation occurred isn't proven/disproven by whether we got the outcome we want,

No ... they are saying that the investigation was not fair and impartial BECAUSE of the conduct/misconduct of the "prosecutor" presenting the defense case rather than the State's case ... which was directly related to this being a shitty decision, which the grand jury got wrong.

As an attorney, you didn't find the conduct of the "prosecutor a tend "odd", i.e., unfair/non-impartial?

[MadDAsHell]

10. I'm already carrying on the same conversation in another thread so I'll be brief...

Yes, the prosecutor's conduct was/is extremely problematic.

But I disagree that that is what the NBA is saying. In fact, the District Attorney's conduct (or anyone else's conduct for that matter) isn't mentioned in the statement at all. The NBA's stated disappointment is "with the outcome of the grand jury’s decision" as "confirmation" of an unfair system.

And again, I have a problem with that when she's speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of other lawyers, judges etc. If she wants to make a personal point, do so. But not from that podium, because there are many of us that spend countless hours providing free or reduced-fee legal assistance to those who need such services, and for her to imply that any outcome that isn't favorable to my client is somehow proof of an unfair, biased, or corrupt system is completely counterproductive. If people completely give up on the legal system, than they have nothing. Why would someone in the legal system be trying to do that?

[Bonx]

6. Has the National Bar Association issued a similar edict ?

[johnnyreb]

7. Not that I've heard, but they (American Bar) do have a great sale on their front page!

/sarcasm directed at ABA.

[jwirr]

11. So has the ABA bothered to say anything about it?