Then you realize the significance of presenting the wrong standard of proof, especially when you present a heightened one to a grand jury. Sometimes a "whoops, I'm sorry" after you've handed out a sheet with a misstatement of law to the jury and presented testimony to them just doesn't cut it.

 

That's a really big deal when the sheet you've passed out has been ruled unconstitutional and hasn't been law during your entire career.

 

If you don't see how that's a big deal, then there's no point in us having this conversation.

 

 

If this were the guy who shot an officer in Pennsylvania was indicted and the same mistake were made, I would be up in arms about it, and I don't think I'm the only one on here who would either.

If that was the determining factor for the GJ I would agree...but is them "taking it back" as you say any different than a lawyer or witness saying something in court and the judge telling the jury to disregard that statement?

If that was the determining factor for the GJ I would agree...but is them "taking it back" as you say any different than a lawyer or witness saying something in court and the judge telling the jury to disregard that statement?

 

Uh, yea. Hugely different when it comes from the DA not even knowing the law, handing a printout to the jury, and then presenting a case and it only getting corrected later.

 

There are some things that once a jury has seen or heard them, a simple "disregard that" isn't going to suffice.

 

If this were a trial, it could be grounds for a mistrial even. Think of it like this: if you aren't supposed to bring up someone's past criminal history, but the prosecutor says he was convicted of a violent crime 20 years ago, then the Judge simply saying, "oh, disregard that" still isn't going to go very far.

 

Of course, this only a grand jury indictment, so the whole process could be done over again. Given what's happened, I think there's a better chance than people are giving it of it being prejudicial enough that it should, in a perfect world, do the thing over again. Absolutely no excuse for a professional in a procedure of this magnitude to "accidentally" quote law that hasn't been in effect since the 80's, especially when it's not like that's ever been the case in her entire career.

Uh, yea. Hugely different when it comes from the DA not even knowing the law, handing a printout to the jury, and then presenting a case and it only getting corrected later.

 

There are some things that once a jury has seen or heard them, a simple "disregard that" isn't going to suffice.

 

If this were a trial, it could be grounds for a mistrial even. Think of it like this: if you aren't supposed to bring up someone's past criminal history, but the prosecutor says he was convicted of a violent crime 20 years ago, then the Judge simply saying, "oh, disregard that" still isn't going to go very far.

 

Of course, this only a grand jury indictment, so the whole process could be done over again. Given what's happened, I think there's a better chance than people are giving it of it being prejudicial enough that it should, in a perfect world, do the thing over again. Absolutely no excuse for a professional in a procedure of this magnitude to "accidentally" quote law that hasn't been in effect since the 80's, especially when it's not like that's ever been the case in her entire career.

 

True but this wasn't evidence in this case it was a standard that was later corrected. More like saying, "If there are a hundred marbles in the bowl then you get pizza, then later saying I was wrong you only need 80 marbles in the bowl to get pizza"

 

I know you want to spin and turn this decision any way you can but IMO this is a small issue.

 

IF they had entered incorrect or irrelevant evidence that could prejudice a jury I would agree that this may need to be revisited, but that's not what happened. It's more like reading the jury instructions, then the attorney's side barring with the judge and the instructions getting changed...no reason for a mistrial in that case.

True but this wasn't evidence in this case it was a standard that was later corrected. More like saying' date=' "If there are a hundred marbles in the bowl then you get pizza, then later saying I was wrong you only need 80 marbles in the bowl to get pizza" I know you want to spin and turn this decision any way you can but IMO this is a small issue. IF they had entered incorrect or irrelevant evidence that could prejudice a jury I would agree that this may need to be revisited, but that's not what happened. It's more like reading the jury instructions, then the attorney's side barring with the judge and the instructions getting changed...no reason for a mistrial in that case.[/quote']

 

 

Watch the video again and look at the convoluted correction she gave. It wasn't anything nearly as simple of an explanation as " 80 vs 100."

 

Then factor in the way grand juries usually work vs how this one worked. One can certainly see where some people would be looking at the process with a cynical eye.

Watch the video again and look at the convoluted correction she gave. It wasn't anything nearly as simple of an explanation as " 80 vs 100."

 

Then factor in the way grand juries usually work vs how this one worked. One can certainly see where some people would be looking at the process with a cynical eye.

 

Your Cynical about every thing :lol2:

 

My question to you would be do you think that made a difference in getting the indictment or not based on the evidence?

True but this wasn't evidence in this case it was a standard that was later corrected. More like saying, "If there are a hundred marbles in the bowl then you get pizza, then later saying I was wrong you only need 80 marbles in the bowl to get pizza"

 

I know you want to spin and turn this decision any way you can but IMO this is a small issue.

 

IF they had entered incorrect or irrelevant evidence that could prejudice a jury I would agree that this may need to be revisited, but that's not what happened. It's more like reading the jury instructions, then the attorney's side barring with the judge and the instructions getting changed...no reason for a mistrial in that case.

 

So handing out a sheet with a misstatement of the law wasn't exactly that?

 

A third year law student shouldn't make a mistake like that.

 

Inexcusable as a professional.

 

Give me some credit here, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Indicting Wilson simply delays the inevitable. No way he is found guilty of any murder charges, regardless of the mistakes made by the county prosecutor's office. The only thing that would change is the riots would take place in the summer.

It?s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson?s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight

That just means that there was 0 evidence against the officer. Also with internet one can find any article to back up any argument a person might have. I have a question JokersWild24? What do you want to happen here with the Ferguson situation? I really want to hear this.

Indicting Wilson simply delays the inevitable. No way he is found guilty of any murder charges' date=' regardless of the mistakes made by the county prosecutor's office. The only thing that would change is the riots would take place in the summer.[/quote']

 

Sorry if I missed something, and in tired lol. But are you talking about a jury trial? NO WAY would I want to be on that jury, with this case, with this much attention, and with the unrest this past August

 

With ignorant reporters and all releasing information, who would be willing to put their family at risk if you want to find the officer not guilty?

 

I agree though that it should just delay the unrest.

So handing out a sheet with a misstatement of the law wasn't exactly that?

 

A third year law student shouldn't make a mistake like that.

 

Inexcusable as a professional.

 

Give me some credit here, I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

So your saying this was intentional? I know you know what your talking about, but are you saying this was intentional and not a mistake? I didn't know lawyers were infallible and above making mistakes...you know I'm just busting your nads, but you also know what I'm saying.

Indicting Wilson simply delays the inevitable. No way he is found guilty of any murder charges, regardless of the mistakes made by the county prosecutor's office. The only thing that would change is the riots would take place in the summer.

 

What you are saying is completely true, but the goal of a court system isn't to prevent protest/riots, etc., it's to get it right.

 

If the DA did what it's sounding like she did, then it's her fault for not doing her job correctly the first time.

So your saying this was intentional? I know you know what your talking about, but are you saying this was intentional and not a mistake? I didn't know lawyers were infallible and above making mistakes...you know I'm just busting your nads, but you also know what I'm saying.

 

Hahaha... I know I make tons of mistakes, and this is usually all in good fun.

 

For a case as high profile as this one, for a DA to not even get the standard of law down, for it to even get into the grand jury's hands in ink, that is A HUGE mistake, especially in a case of this magnitude. HUGE. Just no other way to put it.

 

If it wasn't intentional, then I really wonder about her competence. I mean, this is someone who can put people in prison for life.

 

You just want to uphold the integrity of the procedure and do things right.

 

My response to Crash Davis probably explains a lot of this, and answers what Archie Bunker asked as well.

 

Wilson could be 100% innocent for all I know, but the DA could have royally screwed him and made a huge mistake that starts the whole thing over or leaves a cloud of controversy over the whole thing if not. That may not be Wilson's fault, but you can't say that someone asking that the process be performed correctly is wrong either.

 

What you are saying is completely true, but the goal of a court system isn't to prevent protest/riots, etc., it's to get it right.

 

If the DA did what it's sounding like she did, then it's her fault for not doing her job correctly the first time.

 

I didn't say it was the goal. I also didn't say it would prevent anything. It would delay it until the trial is over. I'm not saying what they did was right. I'm saying that regarding this case, it doesn't change Wilson's fate.

Well if this gets any traction, he'll have to go through all of this again with a Special Prosecutor and a more "Friendly" GJ