C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 8:43pm
A special Prosecutor may challenge Wilson's attorney and the defense's witnesses but there's no guarantee he would challenge Wilson. Wilson wouldn't have to speak at all in a trial.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 8:46pm
ccrunner609;1679777 wrote:there is no way he would need to testify. Evidence is on his side
Agreed.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 8:50pm
Prosecutor felt some witnesses weren't needed to testify for whatever reasons he felt.ccrunner609;1679773 wrote:so people weren't allowed to give testimony to the GJ?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 8:53pm
The prosecutor was speaking for the grand jury when he said that. The grand jury can call whomever they want to testify and they don't need the prosecutor approval nor permission to do so. If they felt the evidence led them to certain witnesses they were legally able to call them.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 8:53pm
evidence was on his side if you choice to believe his word. Only real evidence we had was a kid was killed that didn't have a weapon.ccrunner609;1679777 wrote:there is no way he would need to testify. Evidence is on his side
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 8:54pm
Zwick ...your statements lead me to believe that you haven't served on a grand jury yet have you?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 8:55pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1679783 wrote:evidence was on his side if you choice to believe his word. Only real evidence we had was a kid was killed that didn't have a weapon.
Not true. There was plenty of physical evidence in addition to "his" side and a dead 18 year old adult.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 29, 2014 8:58pm
This. A lot of people are up in arms over the GJ verdict and don't appear how to understand how grand juries work. The race peddlers either don't know, or conveniently ignore, when criticizing to whip their base up into a frenzy.Con_Alma;1679782 wrote:The prosecutor was speaking for the grand jury when he said that. The grand jury can call whomever they want to testify and they don't need the prosecutor approval nor permission to do so. If they felt the evidence led them to certain witnesses they were legally able to call them.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:01pm
I have. 4 months every Monday.Con_Alma;1679784 wrote:Zwick ...your statements lead me to believe that you haven't served on a grand jury yet have you?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 9:03pm
...then why suggest the prosecutor believed or restricted certain witnesses from being call/subpenaed? It's not up to him. You as a grand juror can request to speak to anyone you want.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:05pm
The prosecutor brings in every witness you hear from. A prosecutor will in most cases tell you if he/she thinks there should be an indictment or not.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 9:07pm
You can request anyone you want to speak to and the prosecutor must subpena them. In addition, in a trial, a good attorney can steer the questioning while in a grand jury you the jury can and should ask any question you want.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Nov 29, 2014 9:08pm
uhhh you are forgetting one thing, Wilson would not testify in a trial. and witnesses being made public is the reason a grand jury system works, they aren't afraid to admit what they saw in fear of backlash. I have read several of the witnesses testimony, their stories fall apart as the interviews go on.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1679350 wrote:Officer Wilson should have been indicted b/c a person was killed without a weapon and it became a he said/she said event. All we know for sure is Wilson killed someone who didn't have a weapon, and the prosecutor took Wilsons word for it as suspected.
It should have went to trial where Wilson could have been cross-examined and his testimony would have been dissected, and witnesses would have to have been made public.
No one knows what happened and never will b/c it didn't go to trial. I don't know if Wilson is guilty or innocent and you sure as hell don't hold privy knowledge to know either.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:11pm
Con_Alma;1679795 wrote:You can request anyone you want to speak to and the prosecutor must subpena them. In addition, in a trial, a good attorney can steer the questioning while in a grand jury you the jury can and should ask any question you want.
A prosecutor does steer the questioning in grand jury. When I was in grand jury we were to wait for the prosecutor to finish their quesioning then we were permitted to ask questions. We were to write our questions down if one came up while the prosecutor was questioning the witness.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 9:13pm
So question away. You have as much ability to steer the investigation as any prosecutor. Suggesting the prosecutor can take that control away from the jurors and alternates that are present just isn't accurate.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:15pm
I can also say we never went away from what the prosecutor suggested.Con_Alma;1679800 wrote:So question away. You have as much ability to steer the investigation as any prosecutor. Suggesting the prosecutor can take that control away from the jurors and alternates that are present just isn't accurate.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 9:16pm
...that was your decision. It wasn't forced upon you. you had the power as a jury.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:18pm
Of course not, but id imagine that's pretty typical. It's definitely the prosecutors show.Con_Alma;1679802 wrote:...that was your decision. It wasn't forced upon you. you had the power as a jury.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Nov 29, 2014 9:21pm
Then the people have failed as opposed to the prosecutor. It's not going to be anyone's show if I'm on the jury and it certainly isn't the prosecutor's. He works for me and the rest of the people. His job is to clarify the law when it comes to a grand jury.
If you're not happy with this case because you believe it was the prosecutor's show you should blame the people. They have the power.
If you're not happy with this case because you believe it was the prosecutor's show you should blame the people. They have the power.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 29, 2014 9:35pm
So your brand of justice is a prosecutor manipulating a grand jury to get an indictment for a guy certain to be acquitted?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1679799 wrote:A prosecutor does steer the questioning in grand jury. When I was in grand jury we were to wait for the prosecutor to finish their quesioning then we were permitted to ask questions. We were to write our questions down if one came up while the prosecutor was questioning the witness.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Nov 29, 2014 9:44pm
No I like a prosecutor to do his job and not favor law enforcement. Wilson would be certain to get acquitted to you maybe. You cant speak for everyone.gut;1679808 wrote:So your brand of justice is a prosecutor manipulating a grand jury to get an indictment for a guy certain to be acquitted?
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Nov 29, 2014 9:51pm
from the grand jury questions(from the jurors) I remember, most involved the way Wilson handled himself after the shooting. Who he spoke to, what he did, why he did it etc.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Nov 30, 2014 12:40am
this is great.....apparently "demon" is the new "n" word.
[video=youtube_share;18jRJcCru70][/video]
[video=youtube_share;18jRJcCru70][/video]
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 30, 2014 2:20am
I don't have to. You do realize TWELVE jurors need to unanimously decide he's guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".? Why do all the people who have a problem with "justice" in this case appear to have no clue how the legal system works?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1679815 wrote:You cant speak for everyone.
You sat on a grand jury and still don't know how it works - how shitty was that prosecutor?
Midstate01
Posts: 14,766
Nov 30, 2014 6:31am
So the cops should burn down businesses. I don't want to live in that community!ZWICK 4 PREZ;1679347 wrote:Hard to say. He may still have harassed him. MB might have responded differently. Maybe maybe not.
I am a proponent of having your police force reflect your community though.