Discover more from Wonkette
Grand Juror Thinks Ferguson Prosecutor Should Eat A Bag Of Dicks
You may find this very hard to believe, but it looks like we haven't heard the final word on the grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Even though Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox "News" legal team told us that Darren Wilson had been proven innocent by a flawless grand jury process! [contextly_sidebar id="i71JzAInvxRIdgS7jXuGc52LfjtnNrB3"]
The latest wrinkle comes in the form of a lawsuit from a member of the Ferguson grand juror, who is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch for the right to speak out on the jury's experiences during the case. Grand jury members are prohibited from discussing cases, but "Juror Doe," with legal assistance from the ACLU of Missouri, wants to get his or her two cents out. You may be astonished to learn that the reason for trying to come forward is not to say that they think McCulloch is the kindest bravest warmest most wonderful prosecutor they've ever been honored to know:
“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”
Surely this cannot be true! In his summation for the defense, prosecutor McCulloch said all the evidence that mattered had convinced the grand jury there was no case at all against Wilson! [contextly_sidebar id="NOXw9yrMBqem1PWQpSpK0Kje85T1QAGD"]OK, sure, he also said a little later that he knew he'd put some liars on the stand, but that's no reason to think that the process was flawed or anything. Except now we're hearing from someone who was right there, who wants us all to know that not everyone on the grand jury was a complete idiot.
Juror Doe's complaint also says that the Wilson case was presented much differently from the other cases the grand jury had handled. The juror says "the presentation of evidence" and the "State's counsel to the grand jury investigating Wilson" both "differed markedly and in significant ways from how evidence was presented in the hundreds of matters presented to the grand jury earlier in its term." Specifically, the juror says the Wilson case "had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases" -- and we're going to assume the goal wasn't to present Mike Brown in a particularly sympathetic light, just maybe. You mean other grand jury cases don't try the crime victims? Imagine!
The complaint also touches on another problem with the case:
From Plaintiff’s perspective, the presentation of the law to which the grand jurors were to apply the facts was made in a muddled and untimely manner compared to the presentation of the law in other cases presented to the grand jury.
[contextly_sidebar id="LQq2lR34BdhgdaWquoXUCvWWbINgMlXI"]As we've noted, the grand jury was originally told that under Missouri law, it's OK for cops to shoot a fleeing suspect, even though that law was found unconstitutional in 1985. But at the last minute, the prosecution team gave the jurors a copy of the right law and told them not to worry about the Constitution too much, so why would anyone think the instructions were muddled? (Complete speculation: Is Juror Doe the person who asked the prosecutors to clarify whether the Supreme Court had invalidated the Missouri law? There's a 1-in-12 chance it was!)
The complaint explains that Juror Doe wants to speak up for the sake of educating the public about the grand jury process in general, and this crapsack of a case in particular:
In Plaintiff’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate -- especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges ... Plaintiff also wishes to express opinions about: whether the release of records has truly provided transparency; Plaintiff’s impression that evidence was presented differently than in other cases, with the insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrongdoer; and questions about whether the grand jury was clearly counseled on the law.
In addition, the juror acknowledges that they "would also like to use Plaintiff’s own experiences to advocate for legislative change to the way grand juries are conducted in Missouri." We can't imagine why anything about their experience might have led them to be skeptical about the fairness and effectiveness of the grand jury system.
This is probably a good place to mention that, in a separate action, a group of St. Louis residents has filed a formal disciplinary complaint against Bob McCulloch, accusing him of misconduct in presenting the grand jury with that unconstitutional Missouri statute and putting forward witnesses he later acknowledged gave false testimony. We hope that complaint is given the serious consideration it deserves, but would note that it is, after all, being filed with a Missouri judicial ethics office, so no one should get their hopes up too much.