Howey
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 5,481
- 761
- 200
Wow...A lawyer dumber than Yurt
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury
St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch says he knew some of the witnesses who said they saw Michael Brown get shot were lying, but he let them testify to the grand jury anyway.
Isn't that an ethic violation?
It almost sounds like he played prosecution and defense. Having people testify, who were knowingly lying, so he could then...counter his job a state prosecutor? What the ever living fuck? So he also knew witness 40 was lying and had her testify anyway? Except in that instance, the lying worked to the defense of former Officer Wilson. Odd that he didn't feel her testimony was worth debunking.
That was not/is not his job as a prosecutor. He had no duty to hold a chat room where everyone gets to chime in. The prosecutor controls every aspect of what a GJ will hear or see....as a prosecutor. Thus the old law school 101 adage, "A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, if they want." His job, as prosecutor, in front of a grand jury, was to show reasons to indict for a jury trial. His job was not to play both prosecutor and defense. His job was to secure an indictment as a prosecutor. If there wasn't enough evidence or reasonable suspicion to support an indictment, the GJ decides there's insufficient cause to proceed to a jury trial. Again, it is not his job to introduce or offer evidence against indicting. Which is what he and his team did.
It's not his job to present reasonable doubt. It's not his job to counter himself. It's not his job to present both sides of the story. It is his job to try an secure an indictment from a GJ.
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury - BuzzFeed News
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury
St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch says he knew some of the witnesses who said they saw Michael Brown get shot were lying, but he let them testify to the grand jury anyway.
Isn't that an ethic violation?
It almost sounds like he played prosecution and defense. Having people testify, who were knowingly lying, so he could then...counter his job a state prosecutor? What the ever living fuck? So he also knew witness 40 was lying and had her testify anyway? Except in that instance, the lying worked to the defense of former Officer Wilson. Odd that he didn't feel her testimony was worth debunking.
That was not/is not his job as a prosecutor. He had no duty to hold a chat room where everyone gets to chime in. The prosecutor controls every aspect of what a GJ will hear or see....as a prosecutor. Thus the old law school 101 adage, "A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, if they want." His job, as prosecutor, in front of a grand jury, was to show reasons to indict for a jury trial. His job was not to play both prosecutor and defense. His job was to secure an indictment as a prosecutor. If there wasn't enough evidence or reasonable suspicion to support an indictment, the GJ decides there's insufficient cause to proceed to a jury trial. Again, it is not his job to introduce or offer evidence against indicting. Which is what he and his team did.
It's not his job to present reasonable doubt. It's not his job to counter himself. It's not his job to present both sides of the story. It is his job to try an secure an indictment from a GJ.
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury - BuzzFeed News