Lou Sussan and Lillian Swersky, this is a quick 2 minutes on what I started talking about this morning. After a few minutes of research heres what Ive learned... Grand jury hearings typically don’t involve testimony from the defendant; the prosecutor runs the whole show in deciding who’ll testify, which evidence to let the grand jury see, and which charges to seek. That’s where the old saying that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich comes from (an expression Id never heard before) — because only the prosecution speaks, it’s (usually) exceedingly easy for the state to convince the grand jurors that a crime was committed. Instead McCulloch conducted this as thought it were his own fact finding mission- dumping the evidence on the grand jurors without making a case or identifying the charges he intended to seek. He didnt intend to seek charges. He wasnt trying to represent the interests on Michael Brown or his family. Im not addressing whether or not he would have been found guilty or not in jury trial, but lets acknowledge that the prosecutor didnt do his duty to try to prosecute someone that (at least potentially) broke Missouri state law. McCullochs job was to prosecute. He didnt do that. If there are any lawyers out there that want to correct this... please have at it...
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 04:36:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015