Lawsuit argues Ferguson case was unique... Grand Juror sues to talk
"
The suit was filed against McCulloch, who oversaw the investigation, because his office would be responsible for bringing charges against the juror, according to the ACLU..."
"Right now there are only 12 people who can't talk about the evidence out there," ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said. "The people who know the most — those 12 people are sworn to secrecy. What (the grand juror) wants is to be able to be part of the conversation."
The grand juror behind the lawsuit believes "the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit contends. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own."
"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Rothert said. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."
8 comments:
Who is paying the legal expenses that the juror is incurring with the lawsuit?
Someone or some group is paying for this because that person or group wants to cause trouble by undermining the whole grand jury process, period.
No juror on that panel would want his or her name to be made public due to fears of reprisals and death by the numbskulls who believe the gentle giant was an innocent killed by a racist cop. The juror who is suing must have a whopper of a story to tell, and the details of the story must be highly favorable to the parties pushing discord and protest. The story must make the juror look heroic, while condemning other jurors and the DA and the process itself.
It is really a no-lose proposition for the juror. If the juror's story is made public, then win. If the juror's story isn't allowed to be made public, then win because there is a big element of doubt created.
Grand juries work because the jurors are guaranteed anonymity. Take away that anonymity and the very concept of a grand jury fall apart. The faction that wants to destroy the rule of law wins, big time.
And the rest of us lose, even bigger time.
Somebody wants to cash in.
Actually, I'd bet that it's one of the blacks on the grand jury who's behind this, mostly because he/she knows that sooner or later the veil of anonymity will be broken, and he wants to appear to be on the "right side" so he doesn't get killed.
I must have missed something. When exactly did the prosecutor say or imply a unanimous verdict by the Grand Jury?
Next, anonymity being broken is the main purpose ... beyond what YoungHegelian & Shouting Thomas said...do they plan to provide a vote by vote, with names, tally for every vote taken?
If so, then what Haz has said applies. Don't any of these people have day jobs and other things to do?
Grand juries work because the jurors are guaranteed anonymity. Take away that anonymity and the very concept of a grand jury falls apart. The faction that wants to destroy the rule of law wins, big time.
Amen.
Repeating for emphasis: The faction that wants to destroy the rule of law wins, big time.
What everyone above has said--IN SPADES (pun INTENDED--without apology)
It's funny, leftists hate laws, but love to use them against everyone else who isn't them.
Methadras...leftists may hate laws, but they flat out adore "rules" that they can enforce as if law. For "rules", no debate is required, and no public votes are taken. Voilà! Vague laws permit this aberration to occur...rule making by fiat more or less.
Post a Comment