LEGAL Juror who declined to indict in Michael Brown grand jury case fighting life time gag order

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-case-sues-remove-gag-order-article-1.2066289

Juror who declined to indict police officer Darren Wilson in Michael Brown grand jury case sues to remove lifetime gag order
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of unnamed juror who wants to speak about investigation but would be in violation of Missouri law by doing so
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, January 5, 2015, 12:42 PM

A member of the grand jury that declined to indict the Ferguson police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown asked a federal court Monday to remove a lifetime gag order preventing jurors from discussing the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unnamed juror who wants to speak about the investigation but would be in violation of Missouri law by doing so.

The lawsuit also questions St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch's characterization that "all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges."

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. McCulloch's spokesman, Ed Magee, said his office had not seen the lawsuit and declined immediate comment.

"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 suit does not seek to allow grand jurors in all Missouri cases to be free to discuss proceedings. But it argues that the Ferguson case was unique, and that allowing the juror to speak would benefit the national debate about race and police tactics that was sparked by the shooting.

Brown, who was black, was unarmed when he was fatally shot after a confrontation in August with then-Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who resigned from the department late last year.

The shooting led to widespread unrest in an around the St. Louis suburb, including some protests that resulted in local business being burned and looted. Protests again turned violent on Nov. 24, when McCulloch publicly announced that the grand jury investigating the case had decided there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson.

The grand jury — which included nine white people and three black individuals — met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. Those witnesses included medical examiners and experts on blood, toxicology and firearms, according to McCulloch.

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."

Rothert, the ACLU attorney, noted that the grand jury convened in May and heard hundreds of other cases before devoting its attention to the Wilson case in August. The suit contends that McCulloch's office handled the Wilson case far differently than the others, with "a stronger focus on the victim." The suit also contends that legal standards were discussed in a "muddled" and "untimely" manner.

He also said the Ferguson case was unique in how it sparked a national debate.

"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."
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane
I think they want to undermine the Grand Jury process. There is a reason for secrecy! Some cases are never resolved without it.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
The logical end point of this is simple, flat, indictment and trial in the press.
Suit needs to go to the SCOTUS and denied certiorari, asap.
 

Vtshooter

Veteran Member
Book deal.

Probably been approached by a publisher, I would guess they are funding this lawsuit too.

Yeah, and probably mad they can't show everyone how smart they are over on the #Ferguson twitter feed. I'll bet this person agreed to the gag order when they started the whole grand jury process. Now it's become inconvenient for them.
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
Book deal maybe. I was thinking along the lines that perhaps a black juror wants to explain why they came to their decision to ease tensions. Or to fan the flames.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
FWIW, I'm opposed to lifetime gag orders of any sort, but especially in the case of grand jury service. Jurors are not, strictly-speaking, volunteers. They are legally-impressed into service. To compound this by restricting their rights to free speech with a lifetime ban is absurd. I am not opposed to the jury system at all, but am opposed to many of the ways the law interprets juror's service. If anything, I would grant jurors wider latitude than currently exists.

Best regards
Doc
 
Last edited:

Garryowen

Deceased
IMO the secrecy of GJ deliberations is necessary to allow consideration of personal information that, in absence of a trial, should not be public information. This protects the witnesses and the accused. If the case should come to trial, all the information comes out, as it should. Obviously, confidential information is revealed to a GJ that would be considered protected under normal circumstances.

The juror should honor his commitment to non-disclosure, even if it means he won't get his book deal.
 

Laurane

Canadian Loonie
If someone doesn't want to serve on a Jury, can they just say they won't honor a gag order and get out of it that way?
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
If someone doesn't want to serve on a Jury, can they just say they won't honor a gag order and get out of it that way?

Laurane,

Here in the US, anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence and savvy can easily get out of jury duty. I have never tried to get out of jury duty, even when it meant additional expense and inconvenience to me because I believe in the basic jury system. I've only asked for a deferment once when I was working and living overseas and explained to the clerk that I'd be 8000 miles away at the time of trial. They gave me that without any problems. For those who love conspiracy theories, that first jury duty notice arrived when I was back home for two weeks on a vacation with some South African friends. Later, after over a years' additional absence, when I returned home permanently, I wasn't back in the States for more than a few days when I received the second jury duty notice related to that deferment! That really raised the hackles on my neck! What are the chances (and why can't I ever crush the odds like that at the casinos)?

In answer to your question, all a person generally has to do to avoid jury duty is present a legitimate excuse as to why they cannot attend or - later in court - come up with a reason such as bias, personal history with the type of crime (such as being a mugging victim at a muggers' trial) being addressed or disagreement with the law in question. I have been called for jury duty many times and also served as a deputy sheriff, so have seen the inside of numerous courtrooms. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys don't seem to like to take chances with oddball or difficult jurors and seem to dismiss these types quickly.

Best regards
Doc
 

Laurane

Canadian Loonie
I accidentally wore a badge on my lapel of the Western Canada Concept (a very conservative political Party in Alberta, Canada) and I was released from duty when the lawyer glanced at it - must have thought I probably might not be sympathetic to his client.
 
Top