Michael Brown grand jury under review for misconduct: Report

[Cooley Hurd]

Source: MSNBC

St. Louis officials are looking into a report of misconduct by a member of the grand jury investigating the police shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/michael-brown-grand-jury-under-review-misconduct-report

---

[Mnemosyne]

1. Whoa, how often has this ever happened, I wonder? nt

[amandabeech]

3. I would expect that there have been more than a few grand jurors over the years

who haven't been able to keep silent.

It is unfortunate that it may have happened here, though.

[avebury]

2. If, in fact, the grand jury does not think that there

is sufficient evidence to indict, you have to wonder what the Prosecutors left out of their Presentation.

[Voice for Peace]

4. I recall reading that the grand jury was going to hear directly from all the witnesses, all the

video and recordings, everything that the prosecuter was getting.

[amandabeech]

5. Yes, that's what I recall reading, as well.

In a grand jury proceedings, witnesses testify without counsel in the room. A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that the officer who did the shooting testified for several hours. That means he was in front of the grand jury being questioned by a prosecutor without his counsel present. It certainly would be interesting to hear what he had to say, but it would be a blabbermouth grand juror indeed who would talk about the details of that testimony.

[Syntheto]

9. Certainly...

... I mean we all know the bastard is guilty!!!!!!!! HANG HIM HANG HIM HANG HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY HAVE A TRIAL AT ALL???? WE KNOW FROM WHAT WE'VE READ IN THE PAPERS AND SEEN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE KNOW MORE THAN THE GRAND JURY DOES BECAUSE WE READ ALL THE TWITTER POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE OMNISCIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

10. Why are you yelling at us? eom

[Ikonoklast]

11. It's what trolls do.

Ignore it, it didn't even address the issue at hand.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. I know

But this troll has been here since 2007! Very interesting posting history!

[Beaverhausen]

13. are you under the belief that there should be no trial?

That shooting an unarmed person 6-7 times does not warrant that?

[amandabeech]

6. According to the New York Times report,

since a grand jury does not require a unanimous decision, the grand jury would continue its deliberations without the errant juror. The Times further reports that the grand jury will soon finish hearing evidence, and may make a decision on whether to indict by some time in November.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/possible-leak-by-ferguson-grand-juror-is-investigated.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHeadline&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[herding cats]

7. It could have just been someone talking out of their bum on twitter trying to create more strife.

Not that that's ever happened before or anything. Or, it could have been a person who does know someone on the GJ who is blabbing to their buds that it's not going to end in a conviction. Either way, the GJ will more than likely go on with or without the juror.

[TorchTheWitch]

8. what an idiot

Grand jurors - and any juror in any case - know how important it is to say nothing whatsoever to anyone about what goes on concerning the case(s) they're involved with including their own family. Jurors in court cases aren't even allowed to talk to EACH OTHER about a case until deliberations. To say anything at all about the case on the internet for God's sake is inexcusable. She needs to be kicked off the grand jury and either replaced with another juror or carry on without her... whatever the rules are about this.

Good that she was reported.