We don't know what the grand jury heard or didn't hear. It's all hush-hush. Did the prosecutor -- as has been speculated -- mainly present the deputy's case to the grand jury? Therein lies much of the problem. We have no idea if they heard "all" the facts.

 

When I see that this entire case was dispatched in seven hours ... presentation of evidence, lunch, weighing of evidence and reaching an actual grand jury decision ... sorry.

 

Ask your Golden Boy Jack Conway, he assigned the special prosecutor. Maybe you should start a drive to have that prosecutor removed from office if you feel he did such a horrible job.

Your point is valid. The alternative, however, is being forced to accept a decision shrouded in secrecy.

 

You do know why they seal a lot of Grand Jury Testimony don't you?

It's could be because there is no Double Jeopardy attached to the Grand Jury Process, another Grand Jury can hear this evidence in the future if a prosecutor wants to present it again or if new evidence comes out. They may want to preserve the evidence and not taint a potential future jury pool.

You do know why they seal a lot of Grand Jury Testimony don't you? It's could be because there is no Double Jeopardy attached to the Grand Jury Process' date=' another Grand Jury can hear this evidence in the future if a prosecutor wants to present it again or if new evidence comes out. They may want to preserve the evidence and not taint a potential future jury pool.[/quote']

 

There you go, making sense again

So would you rather charge someone when there isn't enough evidence then?

 

If so, in all cases or only in the cases where police are the accused?

1. No.

2. In cases involving police officers, there's an extra burden on the prosecutor's office to make sure that everything is legit and that what's presented to the grand jury isn't orchestrated like Beethoven's Fifth.

 

I believe I read today that the DA in the Ferguson case intends to release transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. Boone prosecutor needs to do same.

^ HORRIBLE idea for him to release transcripts.

I don't know why some people think they're so important that all rules and precedent be tossed aside because they just want to know. Or they think they're so intelligent that they should have access to this information so they can personally critique the prosecutor.

^ HORRIBLE idea for him to release transcripts.

Here's the story. All makes sense to me.

 

******************************

 

If the St. Louis County grand jury fails to indict Officer Darren Wilson, Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch will immediately release full transcripts and audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, his spokesman said.

 

Ed Magee, McCulloch’s executive assistant, said in an interview that the prosecutor has not yet decided whether the names of the witnesses would be released along with their testimony. “I know we will be releasing the transcriptions of the testimony...I don’t know about the names yet; we’re not sure how that is going to work.”

 

Grand jury proceedings often are not transcribed. Missouri law only requires transcription if a witness is given immunity for testimony or if the judge overseeing the grand jury orders transcription. But Magee confirmed that McCulloch had made a decision to transcribe and tape the proceedings.

 

Magee said McCulloch did not need court approval to transcribe the proceedings but would obtain a court order from St. Louis Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington to release the transcripts and audio.

 

There would be no public release of grand jury materials if Wilson is indicted for killing Michael Brown in Ferguson on Aug. 9. Instead the state’s evidence would be presented in a trial.

Here's the story. All makes sense to me.

 

******************************

 

If the St. Louis County grand jury fails to indict Officer Darren Wilson, Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch will immediately release full transcripts and audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, his spokesman said.

 

Ed Magee, McCulloch’s executive assistant, said in an interview that the prosecutor has not yet decided whether the names of the witnesses would be released along with their testimony. “I know we will be releasing the transcriptions of the testimony...I don’t know about the names yet; we’re not sure how that is going to work.”

 

Grand jury proceedings often are not transcribed. Missouri law only requires transcription if a witness is given immunity for testimony or if the judge overseeing the grand jury orders transcription. But Magee confirmed that McCulloch had made a decision to transcribe and tape the proceedings.

 

Magee said McCulloch did not need court approval to transcribe the proceedings but would obtain a court order from St. Louis Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington to release the transcripts and audio.

 

There would be no public release of grand jury materials if Wilson is indicted for killing Michael Brown in Ferguson on Aug. 9. Instead the state’s evidence would be presented in a trial.

 

Link?

Your point is valid. The alternative, however, is being forced to accept a decision shrouded in secrecy.

 

The process would be the same if it was a hearing about you. It is the same for everyone. It's the law.

I don't know why some people think they're so important that all rules and precedent be tossed aside because they just want to know. Or they think they're so intelligent that they should have access to this information so they can personally critique the prosecutor.

I know. This crazy concept that the public has a right to know is a bunch of baloney. Can't have a bunch of "ordinary people" second-guessing elected officials. Next thing you know, they'll start criticizing the president of the United States.

If he releases the transcripts it will prevent witnesses from coming forward in future cases. What about the witnesses in this case? Were they not assured their testimony would be kept sealed? What about their identity?

Link?

Unable to copy link on ipad. Story is a little dated -- 9-16-14, I believe. Source was STL public radio.

I know. This crazy concept that the public has a right to know is a bunch of baloney. Can't have a bunch of "ordinary people" second-guessing elected officials. Next thing you know, they'll start criticizing the president of the United States.

 

The Grand Jury isn't made of elected officials is it?

I'm not now nor have I ever been in Law Enforcement, but I've testified and presented cases to Grand Juries on several occasions. Every Grand Jury I presented to, the Jurors freely asked me questions.

 

So it's not like they just sit there like a bump on a log waiting for the CA to tell them what to think. I had one grill me pretty hard on a case because he wanted to make sure he understood the process I had followed during my investigation.

 

In fact Grand Juries have more leeway to ask questions and request evidence I think that a regular jury in a trial can. As mentioned Grand Juries are made up of citizens from the community.

If he releases the transcripts it will prevent witnesses from coming forward in future cases. What about the witnesses in this case? Were they not assured their testimony would be kept sealed? What about their identity?

This ain't a Mafia case. Witnesses pretty much were known a few days after the fateful night. Quite a few of the young people had no problem talking to media before they got their grand jury summons. Or did they? Or did the grand jury just watch video interviews of the other three kids in Ramsey car? Another reason why I'd like to see grand jury transcript.