Source
Wrecksomething•

McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to "go into all the African-American neighborhoods." During these weekend sojourns—apparently conducted when her ex has the kids—McElroy said she will "go in and have coffee and I will strike up a conversation with an African-American and I will try to talk to them because I'm trying to understand more."

... "Well Im gonna take my random drive to Florisant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks Niggers and Start calling them People."

Yikes. She thinks its a petting zoo that you don't bring kids too or something.

20
YoungCycloneSocialist/Radical/Nihilist•

Can someone explain to me if it's possible to have a whole new re-do, so to speak, on this or is this a case of something that he can never be criminally re-tried on because of the grand jury's failure to indict?

11
daphnebluestratare you cold, forlorn, and hungry?•

I have been told by lawyer friends and colleagues that the concept of "double jeopardy" DOES NOT apply, as the case has not been tried. The lack of an indictment is not, legally speaking, the same as a non-guilty verdict.

It could conceivably be re-opened at any time. Theoretically.

31
YoungCycloneSocialist/Radical/Nihilist•

Ha, interesting. Yeah, I am sure the odds of it being reopened are, in practice, slim to none but it should absolutely be. It has made the criminal justice system seem like more of a complete farce than it already is.

Thanks for clarifying for me, friend!

3
3olives•

Actually, if unrest in the US gets to a high enough point and makes those in power uncomfortable they will try to quell those that are dissatisfied and push the government to indict Wilson. Again, this will only be done to placate protestors who are threatening the elite and Wilson will be used to take the fall (although he should be indicted for other more just reasons).

1
just_an_ordinary_guyLibertarian Socialism•

This is how I understand it as well. The Grand Jury isn't deciding on acquittal or guilt, just deciding if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The officer was never at risk of life or limb from the Grand Jury.

Also, double jeopardy allows one to be retried on different charges. Wikipedia, gives one such scenario. Say, for instance, someone is acquitted of murder, but later on evidence arises that they may have also been in a conspiracy to commit murder. They can be retried on conspiracy, but not murder charges.

1
YoungCycloneSocialist/Radical/Nihilist•

Also, the prosecutor needs to be tossed. What a worthless sack of shit that guy is.

12
cancercuresLenin-fiúk•

he's worth plenty to the right people.

9
barrister_bearSocialist •

Double jeopardy attaches when the trial jury is sworn in. Wilson has no protection of double jeopardy currently. A different prosecutor may absolutely try again with another grand jury.

The only way he could "never be re-tried" is if after a trial the jury found him "not guilty."

7
iammenotu•

And it really bothers me that the media portrays the grand jury's decision to not indict as some sort of vindication of Wilson and accusation of Brown. As if an actual trial happened, and Wilson was found innocent. It's nothing of the sort. It simply means that that particular grand jury felt the evidence was not be enough to take Wilson to trial. Grrrrr . . . it really chaps me to no end. (I'll go drink me a glass of wine and calm down now).

3
kekkymanMarxist•

I'm under the impression that a person can be re-tried if new evidence arises. Is that correct?

1
barrister_bearSocialist •

No. Double Jeopardy protects a defendant from being prosecuted for the same crime over and over. Once the jury has been sworn in, the right attaches. If the jury finds the defendant "Not Guilty," then its over. The charges for which the defendant was acquitted can never come back, no matter what happens later.

EDIT: I should add, Double Jeopardy also applies if the defendant is found guilty. Whatever his sentence is, that is the only punishment he under the law should receive. A defendant cannot be "re-punished" for crimes he has already been convicted of, though the state skirts this in my opinion with "habitual offender" enhancements.

4
ImNotGivingMyNameState Socialist•

He can be re-punished if he applies for an acquittal.

1
NachoLawbre•

Correct. Even after a jury is sworn in, only a verdict prevents you from being able to retry it. If there is a mistrial for some reason, including a jury that can't come to a unanimous decision, the case can be retried.

1
indigo_voodoo_child•

The DOJ is looking into this case, as well as those involving Eric Garner and John Crawford.

2
Veteran4PeaceDemocratic Socialist•

Every psychopathic young male who wants to murder someone and get away with it, while getting paid, has only to become a police officer and find the right department.

I think our police forces have become sponges for psychopaths (and it only has to happen a few times per city to achieve the results we've seen, so how could it not happen?)

8
Potss•

They are only sponges for the low IQ psychos. The others get jobs on Wallstreet and Washington ave.

7
Veteran4PeaceDemocratic Socialist•

And the military...

5
Potss•

O man you are totally right I forgot about that massive sponge entirely!

6
Veteran4PeaceDemocratic Socialist•

Don't feel bad. I was in the freaking military and forgot to mention it the first time. :p

2
hilltoptheologianChristian socialist•

Hmm, seems like that's the kind of thing that would have come out in a trial, huh?

8
cancercuresLenin-fiúk•

if McCoulough (or however its spelt) had any fucking interest in doing so, then yes. but it was clear he had no fucking interest in it, because his interests aligned with the regional police and political bodies.

14
hilltoptheologianChristian socialist•

Absolutely. He totally subverted the grand jury process to make sure there would never be one.

8