Ferguson Part Deux - No charges to be filed!

[sally305]

<p>

If you all feel the prosecutor was so compromised he should not have presented at the GJ who would have run a trial if the officer was indicted? Or is the goal an indictment and you would have been fine with a not guily verdict?

</p>

<p>The prosecutor was clearly compromised and there was outrage that he wouldn’t step down at the beginning of all this.</p>

<p>Personally, I think there were clear grounds for an indictment and yes I would have been “fine” with a not-guilty verdict in a properly conducted jury trial.</p>

[tom1944]

<p>Who would have conducted the jury trial and would you have been satisfied that he would have conducted a vigorous cross at trial?
Do you think there will be federal charges? I do not think there will be and I do not feel the evidence out in the public supports them.
I think the problem here is that the original story was that a cop shot an unarmed teenager in the back or with his hands up. I remember feeling outraged. It is just that the facts came out that did not support that. In my opinion once the forensics came back that there was Brown’s blood in the car and gunpowder on his hands there was no chance of an indictment. Clearly I feel that is the correct decision in this case. That does not mean that I do not realize there is a problem with racism in law enforcement and the unfair treatment of AA males. </p>

[emilybee]

<p>“If you all feel the prosecutor was so compromised he should not have presented at the GJ who would have run a trial if the officer was indicted? Or is the goal an indictment and you would have been fine with a not guily verdict?”</p>

<p>There are many Assistant DA’s in the St. Louis County DA’s office. I am sure many of them have extensive trial experience, too. </p>

<p>But it is pretty clear, imo, that the goal of the DA did not want the Grand Jury to indict. </p>

<p><a href=“St. Louis County District Attorney didn’t want indictment in Michael Brown shooting: legal expert”>New York News - New York Daily News; </p>

[sally305]

<p>Come on, tom. The victim in this case is Michael Brown. A legitimate prosecutor will try to get justice for him, not take the side of the person who would be the defendant. It’s also very possible to get a change of venue if they can’t get an impartial jury in St. Louis County.</p>

<p>I think McCulloch’s behavior pretty much guarantees a federal investigation.</p>

[tom1944]

<p>I love Ron Kuby and listen to his radio show frequently but to think his in an unbiased opinion and does not come with a preset mind set and agenda is not to be taken seriously.</p>

<p>To be clear we need people like Kuby to challenge the system but like those who knee jerk support police he is going to find reasons to find fault with these types of decisions. I do not want to only see the Kuby’s and the Gulinani’s come out with their arguments for their opinion. I know them before they give them. Give me a middle of the road person who looks at every case on it’s individual evidence and gives their opinion.</p>

[emilybee]

<p>“It is just that the facts came out that did not support that. In my opinion once the forensics came back that there was Brown’s blood in the car and gunpowder on his hands there was no chance of an indictment.”</p>

<p>BS. It is not difficult at all to get a Grand Jury to indict, but the fact is this DA did not want an indictment. </p>

<p><a href=“How Not to Use a Grand Jury | The New Yorker”>How Not to Use a Grand Jury | The New Yorker;

[tom1944]

<p>Are you saying every police officer needs to be indicted if they discharge their weapon and kill or wound someone? Because if the premise is everyone knows you can indict a ham sandwich that would seem to be the standard.</p>

<p>I am leaving for the gym. I will be back to respond later.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

So the GJ did have the correct standard- are you saying they considered the old standard in their decision?

</p>

<p>It’s very possible they may still have been proceeding on the old standard or got them mixed up, especially considering the new standard was given to them only 3 days before they made their decision. </p>

<p>When my stints of jury duty came up, I was astounded to see firsthand and hear from court personnel how often they had to repeat even the simplest instructions and details because too many jurors forgot or got key details mixed up. I can only imagine how they’d have handled juror instructions on complex convoluted matters of law and key details within. </p>

<p>Also, keep in mind many jurors from what I’ve seen firsthand and heard are more interested in getting their jury duty over with than the case they have been assigned to evaluate. Especially if the case has taken longer than a few days and/or the individual jurors concerned are hourly employees or self-employed. </p>

<p>It was also interesting how if they found someone was an attorney or sometimes even a law student, the lawyers involved would exercise their voir dire and successfully get them excused from that particular case and/or jury duty altogether on that basis alone. </p>

[marie1234]

<p>The DA didn’t want an indictment and neither did anyone else who was informed about the facts of the case. The governor could have appointed a special prosecutor but chose not to because the result would have been no different. </p>

[Iglooo]

<p>That Cleveland shooting case, the 12-year old boy, is also going to the grand jury. Sending the case to a grand jury doesn’t seem like an exception. Forensic evidence in this case seems pretty clear cut. If people prefer not to believe any evidence, the argument just goes in circles. Just the girl who’s kept alive because her family don’t believe she’s dead anf start redining alive. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?hpid=z4”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?hpid=z4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[saintfan]

<p>A point on forensics . . . people are making hay over the idea that all of the shots entered from the front. Yes, all of the shots entered from the front if he was standing in anatomical position at the time with palms facing forward and thumbs rotated out to the side. Who stands that way? Who runs that way? Most of the non-lethal shots hit brown in the arms. Do an experiment for yourself . . . draw a dot on your wrist above your palm and in the “crook” of your elbow. Now move around to different normal positions . . . running arms, standing normally, hands up, etc. See what the orientation of those dots is. Do you feel as confident that Brown had his head down and was charging the officer when those shots were fired? Does it make any sense to think that his hands might have been up at any point as most of the witnesses stated? One similarity between this case and the Trayvon Martin case is that dead men tell no tales. The dead youth isn’t around to give their story about how it went down and the story of the shooter, months removed, is what people are trusting for explanation.</p>

[saintfan]

<p>Even more specifically, does that dot experiment make you think that further exploration in a court of law might me warranted? </p>

[marie1234]

<p>Interestingly, in the Trayvon Martin case after the local prosecutor refused to indict a special prosecutor was appointed and the case went to trial only to end in a not guilty verdict. Prosecutors need evidence of a crime. </p>

[sally305]

<p>There IS evidence that a crime MIGHT have been committed. That is why we have jury trials.</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>

The ME found a tangential injury on Brown’s right thumb that traveled along the surface of the thumb — grand jury testimony Volume 3 (Sept. 9), page 114, line 12 etc. (hereafter cited by just page and line number). The ME further explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range (116:22). Indeed, based on his training and expertise, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away (118:12). The soot was consistent with that discharged from a gun (122:13). The official report from the Office of Medical Examiner later confirmed that “the previously described particles of foreign particulate matter are consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”</p>

<p>The significance of this wound and related physical evidence is that it places Brown’s right hand within 6 to 9 inches of the barrel of Wilson’s firearm. This physical evidence is thus quite consistent with Wilson’s testimony that Brown was trying to get hold of Wilson’s weapon, creating a fear in Wilson that he was going to get shot. It also creates a problem for those who view Brown as having been somehow accosted by Wilson and was just trying to escape.

</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>

At some point in the altercation, it appears undisputed that Brown (and his friend Dorian Johnson) ran away from Wilson. Wilson pursued on foot and, according to Wilson, Brown eventually paused, turned around, and then charged at him.</p>

<p>The ME’s testimony also aligns with Wilson’s testimony on this point. The ME found various wounds to Brown’s arms, upper torso, and head. Focusing on the head wounds, a detailed report and summary report from the Office of the Medical Examiner indicated that one wound with an entrance to the vertex of Brown’s head was “downward and rightward” (detailed report at p. 2) and the wound with an entrance to central forehead was “downward, slightly backward, and rightward” (summary p. 1). The report also describes the entrance to the wounds on Michael Brown’s chest as “downward” or “slightly downward” (id.). </p>

<p>The ME explicated these findings at great length to the grand jurors. He explained that the entry direction for the head wounds, for example, was “slightly downward” (157:6). The earlier wounds would not have been disabling (151:1) and would not have been disabling in combination, until the final wound to the top of the head (159:15). In the ME’s opinion, the first wound was the wound to the thumb, the last was the wound to the top of Brown’s head (197:7). The ME specifically testified that if Brown was bent over, that would be consistent with the entry to the head wounds, although he cautioned that he could not say for certain what position Brown was in at the time he received the wound (166:11).</p>

<p>Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).</p>

<p>Here again, this testimony was consistent with Wilson’s testimony. It aligned with Brown charging forward toward Wilson, coming to a halt only when Wilson was able to get a fatal shot to the head. Significantly, the ME’s testimony did not align with those who claimed (before the grand jury or in the media) the Wilson had gunned Brown down in the back.

</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>

The grand jury also heard testimony about a second, independent autopsy performed by an forensic expert hired by the Brown family, Michael Baden. Baden testified that his findings were the same as the ME’s (Vol. 23, at 108:1). With regard to the thumb wound suffered by Brown, he concluded that the thumb was just a “few inches” away from Wilson’s gun. He praised the work of a technician who had found in Wilson’s car skin tissue that appeared to be from Michael Brown’s thumb (72:20). Baden also found that Brown’s head was down when the shots were fired (71:2). (In one curious recent note, the pathology assistant heavily involved with Baden’s work was apparently a fraud, as reported in just the last few days by CNN).

</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>

In addition to the autopsy information, the grand jury was also presented with ballistics information. The crime scene detective presented the location of shell casings and other evidence recovered after the shooting. The locations of the recovered evidence was also marked, as depicted in the adjacent photograph.</p>

<p>Source: St. Louis County Attorney’s Office
Source: St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
All of the evidence is conveniently identified on this chart by The Post (developed from a chart presented to the grand jury).</p>

<p>Of particular interest for evaluating Wilson’s testimony is the location of the 12 shell casings recovered. Two of them were recovered close to Wilson’s car, conforming to his testimony about his firing two shots there (vol. V, 226:4). After that, the remaining 10 casings were recovered adjacent to (or behind) the path that Wilson said Brown took when charging toward him. This was consistent with Wilson firing a series of shots as Brown rushed toward him, all the while backpedaling to try and increase the distance.

</p>

[lkgrg17]

<p>I’m genuinely curious as to whether anyone thought there’d be a different outcome. We make it abundantly clear in this country every day that black lives, especially black boys, do not matter </p>

<p>@romanigypsyeyes So you think the verdict would have been different if Brown was a white kid?</p>

<p>C’mon man!</p>

[Iglooo]

<p>Send comments to Paul Cassell if he missed something. Discussing forensics will be far more productive.</p>

<p>

The Washington Post has this extremely helpful graphical presentation of what happened during the shooting, with links to some of the physical evidence in the case. What follows is my discussion of what appears to be some of the most significant. To be clear, I do not purport here to completely describe all the forensic evidence and related testimony. But I will commit to carefully reviewing all of the comments to this post and if anyone points to a significant omission in what I’m describing about the physical evidence — and provides a citation to the volume and page number of the grand jury testimony for that omission — I’ll be glad to consider adding discussion of it.

</p>