Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Jeff Roorda, the spokesperson for the St.Louis Police Officers’s Association lied when he said the grand jury exonerated Officer Darren Wilson. As a former law enforcement officer, he knows that is not true.
The grand jury merely decided that the prosecution failed to convince nine of the twelve members that there was probable cause to believe Wilson murdered Michael Brown. That decision is not an adjudication of the merits of the case and is not binding on anyone. A new grand jury could be summoned tomorrow to reinvestigate the case and it could decide to indict Wilson. He would have no legal basis to attack the validity of the indictment by arguing that a previous grand jury did not return an indictment.
All judges, prosecutors, police and defense counsel know this to be true. Roorda does too and this is not the first time he lied.
He was fired for lying in a police report and failed upward to his present position. That is a sign of systemic corruption.
For the following reasons, the grand jury’s decision was illegitimate and should be dismissed.
The fix was in from the very beginning.
Wilson never filled out an offense report and was never asked to fill one out.
They allowed him to drive unaccompanied to the station house and clean-up in the wash room with no witness present. They let him place his gun into evidence and made arrangements to let him meet with his lawyer in an interview room before asking him any questions.
That. Never. Happens.
The extreme pro-police bias of the prosecution that is evident throughout the grand jury witness transcripts, including an unconstitutional legal definition of self-defense submitted by the prosecution regarding when a police officer may use deadly force, so corrupted the grand jury process as to render its decision a nullity. This conclusion cannot be legitimately questioned given that Wilson voluntarily testified for four hours without challenge by the prosecution.
That. Never. Happens.
Consider the following grand jury basics:
1) The terms ‘guilty,’ ‘not guilty’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ are legal terms of art that have specific definitions. These terms do not apply to a person who has not been charged with a crime.
2) The ‘presumption of innocence’ does not mean innocence in fact. The presumption only applies to defendants who have been charged with a crime when a fact finder, be it a judge or jury, deliberates on reaching a verdict. If it were otherwise, no defendant would ever be denied bail and there would be no conditions of release.
3) The grand jury was not required or instructed to presume Wilson was innocent and it did not find him innocent. It found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe Wilson committed a crime when he killed Michael Brown. This decision is not an adjudication and does not prevent another grand jury from considering the evidence and returning an indictment.
4) No rule requires anyone to presume Darren Wilson is innocent. He is neither ‘guilty’ nor ‘not guilty’ because those terms are adjudications and he has not been charged with a crime. Anyone who says he is innocent because he must be presumed innocent is mistaken.
The entire grand jury process was a whitewash and should be disregarded.