Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

[Swansong]

Actually it doesn't have to be over criminally. A prosecutor can still bring charges. They won't but they can.

Poor Chuckles...his insults always sound better in the original Russian.

True, but in practice, it won't happen.

 

[Handyman]

Yeah something pretty crazy would have to happen...

 

[Kepler]

Yeah something pretty crazy would have to happen...

All you need is "new evidence," right? And that could be anything.

 

[Handyman]

All you need is "new evidence," right? And that could be anything.

You dont even need that...but to go against a GJ is a pretty hard sell. I mean I would think the defense would be able to use the failed indictment to create reasonable doubt.

But I am hardly an expert...nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[SJHovey]

To me it would seem that an important question as to whether anything is likely to come of it is what was the vote? I think they need 9 of 12 jurors in Kentucky to return an indictment. Is this juror who filed the lawsuit one of eight in favor of an indictment, or is this a lone juror, or maybe one of two, who wanted to indict?

I'm not a huge fan of the lawsuit. It smacks of someone bitter that they weren't able to persuade their fellow jurors to the juror's way of thinking, so now he or she wants to basically publicly ridicule the GJ. What other reason is there?

If we start going down the road of trying to overturn jury decisions through public pressure, that is not ideal.

Locally there is always going to be problems prosecuting cops. Let the feds do it here.

 

[rufus]

Still, pretty hard for a grand jury to consider murder, or even manslaughter charges, if the prosecutor doesn't even present those charges to them.

What was the only charge he brought before them to consider, reckless endangerment?

And that's how cops get off scot-free.

 

[Handyman]

You should read the whole complaint...you could not be more wrong. (imho) It has nothing to do with the outcome and it has everything to do with Cameron blaming the whole thing on the GJ. The Grand Juror wants to set the record straight so the people know what the GJ heard. Doesn't mention the outcome at all. (and to be fair it isnt a lawsuit it is a motion)

I guess I dont see the problem with the transcript being released if everything is above board. The Courts have every right to release the information to the public and in a case like this transparency is huge.

And apparently the AG agrees cause it is being released.

 

[Handyman]

Still, pretty hard for a grand jury to consider murder, or even manslaughter charges, if the prosecutor doesn't even present those charges to them.

What was the only charge he brought before them to consider, reckless endangerment?

And that's how cops get off scot-free.

I asked my dad about it and he said if the DA wanted to tank it without tanking it best bet would be present for the top count (Murder 1) which would be really hard to prove based on the evidence. Since I am guessing the Taylor's want that it placates them while putting the indictment in doubt. Unless the GJ asked about lesser charges they likely wouldnt consider them or vote for them. (obviously this is a hypothetical)

 

[rufus]

I asked my dad about it and he said if the DA wanted to tank it without tanking it best bet would be present for the top count (Murder 1) which would be really hard to prove based on the evidence. Since I am guessing the Taylor's want that it placates them while putting the indictment in doubt. Unless the GJ asked about lesser charges they likely wouldnt consider them or vote for them. (obviously this is a hypothetical)

I heard on a news report this afternoon though, that the prosecutor, or AG, or whatever he is, Cameron, said that the only charge he brought to the grand jury, was reckless endangerment, or whatever the formal wording of it was. Not sure if that's completely true or not, but that's what the news said.

 

[SJHovey]

You should read the whole complaint...you could not be more wrong. (imho) It has nothing to do with the outcome and it has everything to do with Cameron blaming the whole thing on the GJ. The Grand Juror wants to set the record straight so the people know what the GJ heard. Doesn't mention the outcome at all. (and to be fair it isnt a lawsuit it is a motion)

I guess I dont see the problem with the transcript being released if everything is above board. The Courts have every right to release the information to the public and in a case like this transparency is huge.

And apparently the AG agrees cause it is being released.

Whenever they say it's not about the outcome, it's about the outcome.

The juror is unhappy that the jury that he/she is a part of is being vilified, and blames the prosecutor for that. The juror wants to shift blame back to the prosecutor.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Actually it doesn't have to be over criminally. A prosecutor can still bring charges. They won't but they can.

Actually, that's the first accurate thing I've seen posted on here from you folks in quite awhile.

It would require new evidence, of course - not a rehash of old evidence. But kudos to you.

 

[Chuck Murray]

Whenever they say it's not about the outcome, it's about the outcome.

The juror is unhappy that the jury that he/she is a part of is being vilified, and blames the prosecutor for that. The juror wants to shift blame back to the prosecutor.

Bingo.

And credit where credit is due, Handyman's dad nailed it as well.

I asked my dad about it and he said if the DA wanted to tank it without tanking it best bet would be present for the top count (Murder 1) which would be really hard to prove based on the evidence. Since I am guessing the Taylor's want that it placates them while putting the indictment in doubt. Unless the GJ asked about lesser charges they likely wouldn't consider them or vote for them.

 

[Chuck Murray]

And to tie things off with a neat legal bow ... if you extend Handyman's dad's analysis over to the Chauvin/Floyd case, and understand that a grand jury (or down the line an actual trial jury) is going to see everything and know everything about the actions of the officers AND Mr. Floyd, it is not a huge stretch to envision a similar outcome there. I shared the extended video on the whole incident a few pages ago - you can still find it on the Daily Mail website if you're intellectually curious, and not just a "white cops bad" kind of guy (so rufus, you're out), and it is an eye-opener.

These "confusing" outcomes usually happen for one reason, and one reason only - the media only gives you the part of the story that fits their narrative of the day/week/year. They make you dig for the rest. So everyone gets riled up, burns down the town ... and then they find out later that what actually happened is not exactly the same thing that they've been reading.

So, you folks can continue mindlessly chasing after parked cars with predictable results ... or keep an open mind. As they say, fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice ...

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

AG now says no homicide charges were presented

 

[Handyman]

Whenever they say it's not about the outcome, it's about the outcome.

The juror is unhappy that the jury that he/she is a part of is being vilified, and blames the prosecutor for that. The juror wants to shift blame back to the prosecutor.

Which is where it should be. The prosecutor didnt present homicide but the AG said the GJ heard all the relevant info and chose not to charge homicide. They tanked it. The AG threw the GJ under the bus on national TV they should be able to respond to that.

I am still not seeing what the problem here is. This was not some undercover CIA action or putting National Security in jeopardy. The AG made it a public issue with his PC and the Grand Juror called him out for it because they feel they are being railroaded to forward a political agenda.

Seriously read the complaint you might understand it better.

 

[Handyman]

unofan,

I am reading a couple of articles about this and this quote stuck out:

"If they wanted to make an assessment about different charges, they could've done that. But our recommendation was that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their acts and their conduct,"

Now to me that seems a bit twisted. Would a Grand Jury go against the recommendations of the prosecutor if they are saying it was justified? I know they can do that but I can't imagine that happens very often especially in the case where it is an officer involved shooting.

 

[SJHovey]

Which is where it should be. The prosecutor didnt present homicide but the AG said the GJ heard all the relevant info and chose not to charge homicide. They tanked it. The AG threw the GJ under the bus on national TV they should be able to respond to that.

I am still not seeing what the problem here is. This was not some undercover CIA action or putting National Security in jeopardy. The AG made it a public issue with his PC and the Grand Juror called him out for it because they feel they are being railroaded to forward a political agenda.

Seriously read the complaint you might understand it better.

I read the complaint. I understand it perfectly fine. My point is that the neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury wanted to, or wants to, prosecute these cops, but neither wants to be seen as the bad guy. The prosecutor gives it to the grand jury because the grand jury proceedings are confidential and the identity of the jurors is unknown to the public, so it is subject to public ridicule as a group, but not personally. The juror apparently isn't happy with that and wants the prosecutor to take the blame personally, in the public's eye.

 

[unofan]

unofan,

I am reading a couple of articles about this and this quote stuck out:



Now to me that seems a bit twisted. Would a Grand Jury go against the recommendations of the prosecutor if they are saying it was justified? I know they can do that but I can't imagine that happens very often especially in the case where it is an officer involved shooting.

Grand juries are so rare here, and I don't do criminal law, that i don't know for sure. But the adage that a prosecutor could secure an indictment against a ham sandwich probably holds true because they are generally one sided affairs. The prosecutor puts on what they want and nothing else. The biggest inconsistency in treatment when it comes to cops versus the average defendant is that prosecutors often present a fuller picture for the cops, giving the grand jury an out.

Not saying that happened here, but it's possible.

 

[Swansong]

While I do not weep for this prosecutor, my understanding is that in most states, GJ testimony is to be sealed with virtually zero chance of release. This is a way to entice potential witnesses to testify. Does releasing this full transcript blow that up?

Were there any witnesses? Am I tilting against windmills here?

 

[SJHovey]

Grand juries are so rare here, and I don't do criminal law, that i don't know for sure. But the adage that a prosecutor could secure an indictment against a ham sandwich probably holds true because they are generally one sided affairs. The prosecutor puts on what they want and nothing else. The biggest inconsistency in treatment when it comes to cops versus the average defendant is that prosecutors often present a fuller picture for the cops, giving the grand jury an out.

Not saying that happened here, but it's possible.

I did read one article on Kentucky grand juries which said that there is about a 98% indictment rate, so there is that.