Attorney, Alizadeh, then handed the grand jury a copy of a 1979 Missouri law that was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1985. She was handing them something that had not been law in Missouri during her entire legal career. But it was very helpful to Officer Darren Wilson that the Assistant District Attorney handed the grand jury an old, unconstitutional law which said incorrectly that it is legal to shoot fleeing suspects simply because they are fleeing. By handing the grand jury that unconstitutional law, the Assistant District Attorney dramatically lowered the standard by which Darren Wilson could be judged. She was telling the grand jury with that document that Darren Wilson had the right, the legal right, to shoot and kill Michael Brown as soon as Michael Brown started running away from him. She was telling the grand jury that Darren Wilson didnt have to feel his life threatened at all by Michael Brown. She was taking the hurdle that Darren Wilson had to get over in his testimony and flattening it. So the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney gave to the Grand Jury a document that had not been used since before, her entire law career. This hurt significantly. The outdated law states that it is legal to shoot someone if they were fleeing from an officer. This gave the Grand Jury the impression that Wilson was well within his legal rights, directly before his testimony. ODonnell goes on to point out that: The grand jury then listened to Officer Wilsons testimony with the belief that anything he did to Michael Brown would be fully justified legally simply because Michael Brown at some point ran away from Officer Wilson . The District Attorneys office allowed the grand jurors to travel back in time to the good old days of American law enforcement when the cops could shoot people for running away. It does not stop there though. Weeks later, Ms. Alizadeh gave the Grand Jury a second document. This was the current version of the statute, which is quite different than the one jurors were given weeks prior. Aside from that, Alizadeh did not explain to the jurors what was different, despite questions. Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to effect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out, what we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law . . . and so the statute for the use of force to effect an arrest in the State of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, Im sorry, United States Supreme Court cases. So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know dont necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesnt comply with the law. She tells them a portion of the first paper does not comply with the law, but does not explain what portion. The jurors were left to figure it out for themselves. A Grand Juror then asked if, the Supreme Court ruling overrides Missouri statutes? Which clearly, that is a simple answer, yes! Instead Ms. Alizadeh responded: As far as you need to know, just dont worry about that. Another District Attorney in the room, Ms. Whirley, then added: We dont want to get into a law class. This is just one of many questionable things that happened with the Grand Jury. Ms. Alizadeh knows that the Supreme Court overrules Missouri statute. Hell, most high school students know that, but at least one of the Grand Jury members did not know that. It was Ms. Alizadehs duty, with the title she holds, to simply answer yes. Yes, the Supreme Court overrules the Missouri statutes. This, unfortunately, is not the first part of the Grand Jury trial to receive skepticism, and will most likely not be the last. Many still believe the Grand Jury was manipulated by the prosecutors to deliver the decision that McCulloch wanted.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 06:26:48 +0000