This case, if it goes to court, has already been decided, and any verdict returned is already tainted by the events there.
As long as it stays in state/local jurisdiction, I do not agree. Familiarity with a given case does not necessarily equal "tainted." Both sides get to pick jurors and dismiss from the pool (almost) anyone who they believe can't/won't give a fair and objective hearing of their case. It ain't perfect, but that's how it's supposed to work.
And like I said before, I'm less concerned about finding an objective jury than I am of the system putting one of its own on trial and expecting
that fact not to unfairly influence how the investigation/trial is conducted. In case you've never noticed, I am extremely skeptical of any government entity, especially the beyond corrupt "justice" system.
can you even seat a jury with no knowledge of the events and no opinion?
Probably not, but that's not the standard by which a jury is picked in
any case. The standards are easy to understand, mandated that the jurors are instructed and acknowledge that they understand them, and it all boils down to applying the standards of benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant, and they only get that benefit if the doubt is reasonable according to the evidence they are presented at trial,
not what they heard/read/watched on TV/concluded on their own before they ever got there.
You have state senators and Governors calling for indictments without knowing all the facts.
The Governor is a complete and total idiot pandering for votes. He did not call for an "indictment," he called for a "vigorous
prosecution," which yeah, he is calling for something that requires conclusions based on not having all the facts.
If the state senator you're referring to said the same thing, then screw him/her too. But if they actually did call for Grand Jury
indictment, all the facts aren't necessary to come to the conclusion that there's enough probable cause to let a jury decide "all the facts." I have no problem with people saying that since I've said it myself. As I said to Courtney recently,
many people have been convicted of murder on much less evidence than four eye-witnesses. If one can't find probable cause in this case, then they're devoid of objectivity, so saying an indictment is appropriate isn't the same thing as saying what the Governor said.
If it does go to court, time stamped surveillance video of the "victim" would not be admissible WHY?
I don't know how many times or ways I can say it whodat - Michael Brown will not be on trial - Darren Wilson will. The
only "value" that tape could conceivably have is for the defense to prejudice the jury against Michael Brown. The facts in question at trial will be the legal justifiability of each individual shot fired by Wilson, and only Brown's actions can justify the multiple volleys of rounds fired. If we can believe the Chief's last word on the subject, Wilson had no prior knowledge of the incident at the store. Only the actions of Brown during his interactions with Wilson will be allowed, or I guess I should say, "should be" allowed in, since the incident at the store had no bearing on his decision to draw his weapon, fire his weapon, or pause a couple of times between volleys and resume firing twice, and those actions of
Wilson's are what the jury will be charged with deciding the legality/lack of legality of.
Instead of making me repeat over and over what I think about the admissibility of the store video, why don't you tell us how and why you think it's relevant for anything other than prejudicing the jury against the
victim of the defendant who's on trial? The very notion turns the constitutional justice system on its head. Why is that so difficult to understand?
As should you. This thread is not "Michael Brown Trial". I am not asking what you believe would be admissible, I was asking what you believe. Period.
I believe I'm only interested in discussing the legal issues as they pertain to a fair trial under the Constitution of the United States of America. That's my perspective. Don't like it? Tough. What I believe doesn't matter a wit to you or to Wilson or to the bigger scheme of things. I believe I'll focus on how the system works, being critical when it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, and not letting a bunch of people who obviously don't care about the things I care about influence how or what I think about the whole thing.
Also that you consider what myself and others have written without applying the "rule of law" but common sense and gut feeling.
No.
What part of,
"I couldn't care any less what you think about Brown's state of mind, or what dismissals and twisting of others' words you had to engage in to come to your conclusions" didn't you understand?
Now who's "paternal and scolding? If it was a bad shoot, the cop should be under the prison. I cannot in good conscience imagine a white cop executing a black guy in broad daylight with witnesses all around him.
Good grief man, do you really think "white cop/black victim" is the only thing in dispute here? I don't think that issue will even be raised in a potential trial. Maybe in pre-trial hearings and/or sidebars, but you can kiss that goodbye from ever being part of what the jury will hear about, which is as it should be.
Do you really think jurors will have to decide between "he executed him" or "he did not execute him?" How about the question of whether or not the shooting was justified? How about the question of whether the first 8 or 9 rounds might've been justified, but the last one or two maybe weren't? It is quite possible that everyone so anxious to paint Brown as a hardened criminal can be right about that, and
still Wilson could be convicted on the basis of as little as one shot that he fired.
This is exactly why I don't care what you and the others think about it. When I read that stuff it just distracts and delays any realistic evaluation(s) of how a trial might go, which is all I'm interested in trying to do.
Is that because he's a great guy? No, just one that doesn't want to go to prison with whatever people he put there. I am further pushed towards this opinion when Sharpton and Holder smell blood in the water and home in, just when it looks like contradictory stories are coming out. You know, can't let a good disaster go to waste.
If this case ever gets anywhere near a federal court, I will scream from the mountaintops against it. Sharpton is an ex-coke-sellin' pimp and former(?) FBI informant, the latter of which should disqualify him from having any credibility in the communities he hustles. But the town of Ferguson and its citizens will not be on trial here. Darren Wilson will, and at the top of the list of accusations that he'll have to defend against will be about copper-colored objects that he fired into Michael Brown, not
anything having to do with black or white. More extraneous distractions.
Blues
