Ferguson Grand Juror Suing The Prosecutor

[Gravekeeper]

To remove the gag order.

Seems at least one of the jurors doesn't like the way that idiot prosecutor is going around hanging everything on the grand jury rather than his own conduct. So they're suing to remove the gag order on the grand jury so they can give their side of the story of the case proceedings. Instead of the side that the prosecutor has been peddling on the news.

[HEMI6point1]

Good, I'd say.

[Greenday]

I certainly didn't fully expect a unanimous decision. But the majority did agree not to indict him and that's what's important.

[Gravekeeper]

I certainly didn't fully expect a unanimous decision. But the majority did agree not to indict him and that's what's important.

No, thats really not whats important about this particular case. We have a biased prosecutor who threw the case thats now going around hanging things on the jury. The jury who, by legal gag order, can't respond to defend themselves or tell their side of things.

The prosecutor is a corrupt shitweasel who admits he put witnesses on the stand who he knew were lying. But tries to defend it by saying the jury knew they were lying too.

[Andara Bledin]

I certainly didn't fully expect a unanimous decision. But the majority did agree not to indict him and that's what's important.

When the prosecutor knowingly breaks the law when presenting a case to the Grand Jury, the fact that they didn't indict is not even on the table, much less important. >_<

[s_stabeler]

I certainly didn't fully expect a unanimous decision. But the majority did agree not to indict him and that's what's important.

yes and no. What the issue here is that the Grand Jury can't give their side of the story, due to being under a gag order- and the prosecutor is claiming that it was the Grand jury's fault that the Ferguson cops were not indicted.

It matters, because the grand Jury can only rule based on what is presented to them.Also, they have to rule based on if they think there is a realistic prospect of conviction- Which, quoite frnakly, if the prosecutor is clowning around, deliberately throwing the case, their thoughts may well have run "Ok, realistically, the prosecutor is going to do this same shit at trial, so, while under normal circumstanced we'd return an indictment, it's be a waste of time in this case" which is on the prosecutor, not on the Grand Jury.

[AccountingDrone]

yes and no. What the issue here is that the Grand Jury can't give their side of the story, due to being under a gag order- and the prosecutor is claiming that it was the Grand jury's fault that the Ferguson cops were not indicted.
.

You know, I think if I were on the Grand Jury, it would be worth the freaking jail time to have the biggest press conference I could organize. That is NOT what a gag order is for in the spirit of the law.

[gremcint]

yeah well and after you've been to jail and lost your job you'd have to pick up the pieces of your life. I can't blame them for not wanting to ruin their life over this.

[AccountingDrone]

yeah well and after you've been to jail and lost your job you'd have to pick up the pieces of your life. I can't blame them for not wanting to ruin their life over this.

That is why I said I, I am not currently employed, and once out, I still have my tri-care, that can not be taken away except by act of congress.

I once faced down a judge by telling him that if I got thrown in jail for contempt it would be an improvement as I was at that point in time effectively homeless and living on friends couches while saving up for an apartment downpayment. You simply have to pick your battles.