If I were on the grand jury in Ferguson. Reasons why I would have voted to indict the officer. As a grand jury member, my role is simply to act as a firewall between a potentially overzealous prosecutor and a member of the public being pursued. It isnt my role to determine guilt or innocence, just to determine if theres enough there, there. . As a grand juror, if Im presented with evidence, or read testimony, or hear testimony that creates conflicting accounts of what happened, with those conflicts being created by the officer himself, I would -not- treat that as something for me to contemplate. I would see that as for a trier of fact on a trial jury to see evidence, hear testimony, and most importantly hear cross-examination conducted by experienced trial lawyers. . --- For example, officer testimony suggest that the officer was punched, while sitting on the drivers side of his vehicle, on the right side of his face by Browns right hand. Its not for me as a grand juror to figure out how that could have happened, thats for a trier of fact on a trial jury to resolve after listening to testimony and cross-examination. . --- Likewise, the change in the officers testimony about the number punches [from 10 initially, down to 2 during grand jury testimony], and the conflict between the officers description of the devastating severity of the blows appear to be in conflict not just with photos of his face but also with descriptions in the hospital record. Again, its not for me to determine anything here, its for a trier of fact on a trial jury. . --- The 64 officers testimony about being charged by a wounded 64 Mike Brown being about 10 feet away from him when his gun shots stopped him. The height of these 2 individuals means that fully extended arms would takeup about 6 of the 10 feet, thus placing these 2 about 4 feet apart. Crime scene evidence suggests a far greater distance. The only witness saying Mr Brown charged the officer says he was 50 yards away. Its not for me to figure out whats going on, its for a trier of fact on a trial jury. . --- The officers grand jury testimony about Mr brown having placed his hand in his gym shorts as if reaching for a weapon as he charged the officer, conflicts with his initial statement. Its not for me as a grand juror to resolve that, its for a trier of fact on a trial jury. . --- If the prosecutor brings the subject of a possible indictment in to provide testimony, but they dont cross-examine him when the subject matter is a police shooting. Its not for me to draw a conclusion about that, its for a trier of fact to sit and listen to the cross-examination of the officer or the recorded statement. . --- Most importantly, autopsy reports show entry wounds on the top of Mr Browns head. In terms of the numerous gun shot wounds, there is supposedly is no way to determine the order of entry. Thus obviously its not for me to assume anything one way or the other, this is something for a trier of fact to be presented with expert testimony followed by cross examination. . These are just a few of the reasons why I, a grand jury member would vote in favor of indictment to allow a trier of fact to resolve this matter with help from expert witnesses, cross-examinations, and opening and closing statements.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:17:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015