"You know The Fix is in when ..."
Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer
by Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; huffingtonpost.com -- 11/29/2014
You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.
[...]
The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.
[...]
Every principle [Justice] Scalia cited was violated in this case. The grand jury was asked to determine whether Wilson acted in self-defense. Wilson was allowed to give four hours of self-serving testimony to the grand jury. And for three months, prosecutors presented both incriminating and exculpatory evidence.
[...]
"You know
The Fix is in when ..."
Giuliani: Wilson Case Never Should Have Gone to Grand Jury
by Evan McMurry, mediaite.com -- Nov 30, 2014
[...]
“Having read the transcripts of the Grand Jury, and having been a prosecutor for thirteen years, I don’t see how this case normally would even have been brought to the Grand Jury,” Giuliani said.
Call those 'breaking news' statements by the former mayor,
a pre-emptive strike ...
Because the 'non-finding' of Ferguson Grand Jury, may not be the last legal word, on this extraordinary case miscarriage of Justice ...
"You know The Fix is in when ..."
Getting the Facts Right About the Ferguson Grand Jury Decision
by Nancy Leong, Professor of Law at the Univ. of Denver Sturm College of Law; huffingtonpost.com -- 11/28/2014
[...]
Myth: It's normal for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury.
Fact: It's actually rare for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury. It's not unheard of, and the practice varies from one jurisdiction to another. But in most instances people who are known targets of a grand jury investigation don't want to risk testifying in front of a jury. Moreover, there is no absolute right for a defendant to testify in front of a jury that is investigating him. So Robert McCullough, the prosecutor, gave Darren Wilson an opportunity that McCullough was not constitutionally or statutorily required to provide.
[...]
Myth: Double jeopardy prevents Darren Wilson from being charged in the future with a crime relating to his shooting of Michael Brown.
Fact: A non-indictment by a grand jury doesn't trigger double jeopardy. Another grand jury could be convened to hear the evidence. Indeed, one criminal law expert has called for precisely that to happen, although so far Governor Jay Nixon has said he will not appoint a special prosecutor to present evidence to a new grand jury. Moreover, Wilson could also be charged with a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which makes it a crime for government officers to deprive citizens of constitutional rights.
"You know
The Fix is in when ..."
The rarity of a federal grand jury not indicting, visualized
by Philip Bump, washingtonpost.com -- Nov 24, 2014
A data point from FiveThirtyEight's coverage of Monday night's events in Ferguson is worth pulling out. "U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010," the site's Ben Casselman writes, "the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
[...]
Ahh, make that
12 times.
But there is a legal fix to The Fix being in ...
Contact Missouri Governor Jay Nixon
Tell him to appoint a special prosecutor, to undo McCulloch's blatant manipulation of Grand Jury Process.
Contact the Department of Justice, "including the Attorney General."
Tell them to pursue Section 242 of Title 18 charges against Officer Darren Wilson, for depriving Michael Brown of his Constitutional Rights. You know his "Miranda Rights," etc. etc. etc.
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Department of Justice
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
[...]
If our Justice System
is broken, it's about time we damn-well
Fix it!
If not us, Who? If not now, WHEN?