"Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZS.html), explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/)

Eh, Scalia has made no comment one way or another regarding the Ferguson Grand Jury.....

Kinda funny that from 1992 until now many grand juries have convened and yet this is the only one we hear is "wrong', I can't help but be entertained by so much concern over some douche bag getting his brains blown out

If brown had had any brains he would not have committed at least three felonies on 09 Aug 2014......

Brown's IQ was probably lower than his height, which  explains his suicide!

"Burn this b---- down!".  What's a kid to do when raised in this type of environment.  Maybe we should blame Michael's stepfather for Michael's  bad choices...

His parents should have closer taps on him I agree!

How about putting the blame were the blame belongs, and that is on the black leadership, after all Africans have a tribal background and tribal leaders that thinks and decides what they do when they do it how they do it and why they  do it, in other words the vast majority are not capable enough to make their own decisions so they follow instructions.

Kind of reminiscent when the Berlin wall fell down.....

Support personnel who went over there to assist the newly freed East Germans quickly learned they were virtually helpless in that the very basic day to day functions were impossible for the newly freed East Germans to accomplish, they were lost....

DBM ~ As I understand it, Blacks are very Religious.  So I would say they do have a leader.  Your GOD.  So why would they need anyone else...

good point, the prosecutor had no evidence to bring to the grand jury that would indict the officer! being a good democrat, the prosecutor took the heat off himself and transferred it to the grand jury.

Shows you what great lengths liberals will go to in order to lie to the public!

1965hawks and Stink progress have no shame and no honesty!

(( being a good democrat, the prosecutor took the heat off himself and transferred it to the grand jury.))
 
 
Vary smart move. Put the case in the hands of 12 people, instead of just one person.  Personally, I believe this case was above the Prosecutors pay grade.  12 heads much better than one...

jiggy, I believe you are correct. the prosecutor didn't have any evidence that would have supported an indictment and if he would have gone it alone the hell would have been a lot worse!

No; he hasn't, John. But Justice Scalia's opinion in United States v. Williams (1992) points out the procedural errors committed by the Ferguson grand jury and Prosecutor McCulloch.

No. Here's what's funny, Baretta19: your laughable attempt to ignore the evidence that supports the claim of procedural errors committed by both the Ferguson grand jury and McCulloch.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/)

Who cares what Justice Scalia's opinion was in 1992, what is his opinion right now?  Procedures will change throughout the years.  In many cases procedures conform to circumstances.  The fact that this procedure was used by the Prosecutor and Grand Jury, means it was legal and within their rights. 
 
With the firestorm brewing on the horizon, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to make that decision alone.  Again, I think the right choices were make.  The only bad choices I see was Michael Browns'...   

Poor little racist don't-blameme, incapable of submitting a post without playing the race-baiting card.

Brief Fact Summary.

After being indicted for false representation, John Williams (respondent) filed a Motion for Disclosure of all exculpatory portions of the grand jury transcripts. Upon finding that the prosecution did not present this exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, respondent requested that his indictment be dismissed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is no general rule requiring prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence.

Facts.

Williams was accused of misrepresentation of his character, which was allegedly effected through two financial statements. The prosecutor did not present, however, evidence which showed that Williams was always candid with his financial information. After he was indicted, Williams sought to have that indictment overturned because the grand jury was not presented with all the information by the prosecutor. The District Court overturned the indictment and appeals ensued.

Issue. Whether a district court may dismiss an otherwise valid indictment because the Government failed to disclose to the grand jury exculpatory evidence.

On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.


It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

It would seem the actual facts from the case are in contradiction to what is being presented in your piece.....

Me thinks that stink progress is trying to modify reality....

In post number 3, John Adams mentioned if Brown had a brain. He did. It was the spot on the wall behind him.

So jiggyboo, you view al Sharpton jesse Jackson Obama and holder as gods! Louie louie even made the claim obama was the messiah, and another negro proclaimed that Obama was the lord and savior!

(( It was the spot on the wall behind him. ))
 
What wall?? Brown was in the middle of the street. And the allege kill shot would have pushed his brain down his throat...

It would have pushed his brain down his throat if only he had a brain.....

Haha!!  Can't argue that point, John...

(( So jiggyboo, you view al Sharpton jesse Jackson Obama and holder as gods! ))
 
 
Seeing as how I don't believe in your GOD. Those people you mentioned are just, in your opinion,  who you think they are...

 
Michael's stepfather should be in jail charged with inciting to riot.  He's the one who gave the order to Burn Ferguson down.  And people listened..
 
 

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back.

The grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges.

Their inconsistencies began almost immediately after the shooting, from people in the neighborhood, the friend walking with Brown during the encounter and even one woman who authorities suggested probably wasn't even at the scene at the time.

One witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.
Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.




Associated Press writers Michael Kunzelman, Catherine Lucey, Nomaan Merchant, Garance Burke, Jeff Donn, David B. Caruso and Paul Weber






Related:


Black Mob Violence Now a Sickness (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/black_mob_violence_now_a_sickness.html)

The posting here by the hawker is some what disingenuous given the title is a slanted distortion of truth....

The facts of the case in 1992 do not coincide with this case, stink progress and it team of miscreants tried to link a Conservative Justice with a case that was not the least bit comparable.....