BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

KC

On 12/2/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

“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 affect 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. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that
you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn’t comply with the law.”

She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..

Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The function of the DA is to win at trial and I have not heard anyone
with any kind of legal credentials who says they could have gotten a
conviction based on the evidence.

There is no benefit for anyone if they bring a losing case to trial.
It would just be a huge waste of money and it would not placate
anyone.

I imagine they will threaten a civil case but that will open up a lot
of things about Michael Brown that I am sure they would rather leave
alone. There is virtually no limit to what attorneys can bring into a
civil case. I am sure, the first thing that will happen is Brown's
juvenile record will be leaked and that "gentle giant" bull**** will
evaporate.

The *only* reason they want a trial is to destroy the families and lives
of anybody who told the truth at the GJ.. This is about thugs, looking
for someone to hurt...