Bob McCulloch’s pathetic prosecution of Darren Wilson; A grand jury will indict a proverbial ham sandwich if a Prosecutor asks it to!

Grand Juries Work At The Behest Of The Prosecution That Favors The Privilege And Disavows The Average Citizen. In Today’s World Grand Juries Are No Longer Serving The Public And Needs To Be Outlawed. We Amended The Constitution! [Sheriff Ali]

 

As has been repeated often in recent weeks, a grand jury will indict a proverbial ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to. Alternatively, McCulloch could have brought charges through a judicial hearing; he chose not to do that, either.

 

Ferguson reminds us that we still have a race problem in America. But the face of this problem is not Darren Wilson’s. It’s Bob McCulloch’s.

 

Wilson, the Missouri police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, is the target of most public ire. But no responsible person thought Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown was premeditated. Even if prosecutors tried him on lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter, they might well have come up empty — and most people would have accepted that result of a fair trial.

 

What causes the outrage, and the despair, is the joke of a grand-jury proceeding run under the auspices of McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor. In September, I wrote that it appeared he wasn’t even trying to get an indictment; he had a long record of protecting police in such cases, and his decision not to recommend a specific charge to the grand jury essentially guaranteed there would be no indictment.

 

When McCulloch announced the inevitable result Monday night, he prefaced it by blaming the press and social media for whipping up emotions in the case with inaccurate information. He went on to ridicule witnesses who had given inconsistent testimony. He hid behind the grand jurors, as if he hadn’t orchestrated their decision with the finesse of conductor Christoph Eschenbach: “Anyone suggesting that somehow it’s just not a full and fair process is just unfair to these people” who “gave up their lives” to deliberate.

 

McCulloch essentially acknowledged that his team was serving as Wilson’s defense lawyers, noting that prosecutors “challenged” and “confronted” witnesses by pointing out previous statements and evidence that discredited their accounts. “Physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda,” McCulloch lectured piously. “Physical evidence does not look away as events unfold.”

 

But physical evidence, like eyewitness testimony, is imperfect and often ambiguous. McCulloch knows this; that’s why he hedged in saying Brown’s wounds were “consistent with a close-range gunshot” and “consistent with his body being bent forward.” McCulloch acknowledged that you could “take out a witness here, a witness there, and come to a different conclusion.” And that’s exactly why we have public trials: to litigate conflicting accounts in a setting where the burden of proof is much higher than the probable-cause standard of the grand jury. [Dana Milbank Washington Post]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Open link for full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bob-mccullochs-pathetic-prosecution-of-darren-wilson/2014/11/25/a8459e16-74d5-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opin&wpmm=1

After 20 years on Death Row, Debra J. Milke would be freed to await New Trial!

“No civilized system of justice should have to depend on such flimsy evidence, quite possibly tainted by dishonesty or overzealousness, to decide whether to take someone’s life or liberty.” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Overzealous Prosecutors and unchaste Police Officers can ruin your life.

 

Judge Rosa Mroz of Maricopa County Superior Court set Debra Milke’s bond at $250,000 Thursday, saying there’s no direct evidence linking her with her son’s death other than a purported confession to a detective. And, the judge said, the validity of that confession is in doubt.

 Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Milke would probably be released Friday. Defense attorney Michael Kimerer said in an email that Milke could be released Friday afternoon, but provided no other information. If she is freed, Milke’s lawyers have said she plans to stay at a home that supporters bought for her in the Phoenix area. She has been imprisoned since 1990.

Prosecutors say Milke had her son, Christopher, killed to collect on a $5,000 insurance policy. She allegedly dressed the boy in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall in December 1989. She then handed the boy over to two men who were later convicted of taking the child to the desert and shooting him.

The possibility of freedom comes six months after a federal appeals court overturned Milke’s conviction, ruling that the prosecution should have disclosed information about the truthfulness of the now-retired detective who testified that Milke confessed.

Milke was a 25-year-old insurance company clerk when her son was killed. Now 49, she has maintained her innocence, saying she had nothing to do with the slaying. The two men convicted in the case both remain on death row. Neither Roger Scott nor former Milke roommate James Styers testified at Milke’s trial. Scott confessed during a police interrogation and led detectives to the boy’s body.

 Maricopa County prosecutors are still seeking the death penalty against Milke, and her alleged confession is at the heart of the case against her. Police detective Armando Saldate Jr. testified at Milke’s trial that she confessed to him in a closed interrogation room.

But Saldate’s honesty was called into question during Milke’s appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in March that prosecutors’ failure to turn over evidence related to Saldate’s credibility deprived Milke’s attorneys of the chance to question his truthfulness before jurors.

“No civilized system of justice should have to depend on such flimsy evidence, quite possibly tainted by dishonesty or overzealousness, to decide whether to take someone’s life or liberty,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the court.

The court noted four cases in which judges threw out confessions or indictments because Saldate lied under oath and four instances in which cases were tossed out or confessions excluded because Saldate violated the suspect’s constitutional rights.

 He was also suspended for accepting sexual favors from a female motorist he stopped and then lying about the encounter, the court said. Deputy County Attorney Vince Imbordino argued last week during a bond hearing that the purported confession is still admissible, but Mroz said the undisclosed material concerning Saldate “casts serious doubt” on its validity.

The judge scheduled a Sept. 23 hearing on the defense’s request to prohibit the prosecution from using the confession during the retrial. “Much has transpired since the original trial,” Mroz said. Milke’s ex-husband, a man named Arizona Milke, is convinced his former wife was involved in their son’s murder. He said Thursday he intends to sue her, the state and Saldate for what he believes is a conspiracy to conceal the boy’s real killer.

“She’ll win this case criminally,” he said Thursday. “But she’ll lose it civilly, and so will the state.”

 Phoenix [AP]