Vegas Free-for-All - FERGUSON, MISSOURI

FERGUSON, MISSOURI

malibber2

Dec 3, 2014
8:31am

Your exactly right about that. To rest of you out in crazy land your client is the one who pays you and that is who you owe a duty to. Public figures and commentators aren't your client, and you can't represent multiple clients with conflicting interests.

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I don't have a clue how this works, but Malibber is telling us that if he's the prosecutor and he has access to video of the cop sitting at a casino in Las Vegas at the same time that Brown was killed, he would proceed to prosecute anyway...............knowing with absolute certainty that an innocent man was be tried.

That sound like Obama World. Make shit up as you go along.

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
The rules of conduct that all attorney's must follow require that I zealously represent my client. As prosecutor my client is the state and it is my duty to do everything ethical at my disposal to get an indictment. If I fail to do so, I have violated my sworn duties as both a prosecutor and an attorney.

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Ok Mal, lets do a bit of role play. YOU are the prosecutor in a high profile racial case where the local black community and several national "civil rights leaders" are demanding the officers head on a platter. How are YOU going to present the case to a grand jury?

Please keep in mind that anything short of a guilty verdict will result in rioting by the community. - well known and spoken outright by various civil rights "leaders".

Actually I was gonna ask mal same thing, good query tony.

I was quite suprized that once the door was opened no one decided to step through already.

Let's not get carried away. There was no definitive exculpatory evidence in the Brown case. Mal didn't say he'd prosecute someone he knew to be innocent.

BobOrme

Dec 3, 2014
3:42pm

Block User

You are talking in circles. ObeyMe, Holder and Sharpton are not "public figures and commentators". The President, the Attorney General of the USA, and the President's appointed representative DID NOT have "conflicting interests", at least not according to your limited definition of what a prosecutor can or cannot do in a grand jury hearing. Those three wanted an indictment. There was pressure from the top.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Your exactly right about that. To rest of you out in crazy land your client is the one who pays you and that is who you owe a duty to. Public figures and commentators aren't your client, and you can't represent multiple clients with conflicting interests.

Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I don't have a clue how this works, but Malibber is telling us that if he's the prosecutor and he has access to video of the cop sitting at a casino in Las Vegas at the same time that Brown was killed, he would proceed to prosecute anyway...............knowing with absolute certainty that an innocent man was be tried.

That sound like Obama World. Make shit up as you go along.

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
The rules of conduct that all attorney's must follow require that I zealously represent my client. As prosecutor my client is the state and it is my duty to do everything ethical at my disposal to get an indictment. If I fail to do so, I have violated my sworn duties as both a prosecutor and an attorney.

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Ok Mal, lets do a bit of role play. YOU are the prosecutor in a high profile racial case where the local black community and several national "civil rights leaders" are demanding the officers head on a platter. How are YOU going to present the case to a grand jury?

Please keep in mind that anything short of a guilty verdict will result in rioting by the community. - well known and spoken outright by various civil rights "leaders".

Actually I was gonna ask mal same thing, good query tony.

I was quite suprized that once the door was opened no one decided to step through already.

Let's not get carried away. There was no definitive exculpatory evidence in the Brown case. Mal didn't say he'd prosecute someone he knew to be innocent.

BobOrme

Dec 3, 2014
3:47pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Mal didn't say he'd prosecute someone he knew to be innocent.

He didn't say he wouldn't. He basically said he'd ignore proof of innocence because it would be his duty to do so as a prosecutor.

Boilerman

Dec 3, 2014
7:29pm

Block User

Here's a quote from Malibber regarding the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney during Grand Jury proceedings.

"In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how every other criminal case is handled in that state and most others."

Malibber, is it a "gross miscarriage of justice" for the prosecuting attorney to present reasons not to indite or is is it not? Apparently, some are saying that this is absolutely prohibited.....................except when when it's not.

Malibber, please clarify.

Quote

Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I don't have a clue how this works, but Malibber is telling us that if he's the prosecutor and he has access to video of the cop sitting at a casino in Las Vegas at the same time that Brown was killed, he would proceed to prosecute anyway...............knowing with absolute certainty that an innocent man was be tried.

That sound like Obama World. Make shit up as you go along.

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
The rules of conduct that all attorney's must follow require that I zealously represent my client. As prosecutor my client is the state and it is my duty to do everything ethical at my disposal to get an indictment. If I fail to do so, I have violated my sworn duties as both a prosecutor and an attorney.

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Ok Mal, lets do a bit of role play. YOU are the prosecutor in a high profile racial case where the local black community and several national "civil rights leaders" are demanding the officers head on a platter. How are YOU going to present the case to a grand jury?

Please keep in mind that anything short of a guilty verdict will result in rioting by the community. - well known and spoken outright by various civil rights "leaders".

Actually I was gonna ask mal same thing, good query tony.

I was quite suprized that once the door was opened no one decided to step through already.

Let's not get carried away. There was no definitive exculpatory evidence in the Brown case. Mal didn't say he'd prosecute someone he knew to be innocent.

jatki

Dec 4, 2014
12:25am

Block User

No shit, mals talking in big time circles.

chefantwon

Dec 4, 2014
7:26am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
The rules of conduct that all attorney's must follow require that I zealously represent my client. As prosecutor my client is the state and it is my duty to do everything ethical at my disposal to get an indictment. If I fail to do so, I have violated my sworn duties as both a prosecutor and an attorney.

Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Ok Mal, lets do a bit of role play. YOU are the prosecutor in a high profile racial case where the local black community and several national "civil rights leaders" are demanding the officers head on a platter. How are YOU going to present the case to a grand jury?

Please keep in mind that anything short of a guilty verdict will result in rioting by the community. - well known and spoken outright by various civil rights "leaders".

Actually I was gonna ask mal same thing, good query tony.

I was quite suprized that once the door was opened no one decided to step through already.

Fair enough Mal. In this case, how are you going to prove the police office killed Mr. Brown (he was 18 so technically, he was a Mr.)? Also what will you settle for if you are unable to get the maximum?

Since the members of the Grand Jury were selected prior to the crime, can you or will you attempt to try to get some members thrown out to have a more racially favorable jury?

How are you going to treat the testimony of the 7 people who agreed with the officers account of the incident?

The same question going to people who have a different account of the facts but who have a very questionable character.

malibber2

Dec 4, 2014
9:27am

Block User

That is an easy one to answer. Instead of 30 days of testimony and evidence I would have simply summarized all the evidence in favor of indictment, spent at most a day on it and then recommend charges. The jurors would have voted if there was enough evidence for probable cause nothing more. All the other stuff would be sorted out at trial which is how it is supposed to be done.

Boilerman

Dec 4, 2014
9:36am

Block User

Even though you had a video showing the cop was in Las Vegas at time of the death? That seems odd, unethical and wasteful, but then I don't understand law.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is an easy one to answer. Instead of 30 days of testimony and evidence I would have simply summarized all the evidence in favor of indictment, spent at most a day on it and then recommend charges. The jurors would have voted if there was enough evidence for probable cause nothing more. All the other stuff would be sorted out at trial which is how it is supposed to be done.

malibber2

Dec 4, 2014
12:57pm

Block User

He moved on to what I would do in the case of Mr. Brown, and that is the question I answered. Obviously if there was videotaped of evidence of the suspect being someplace else when the crime happened I would never even take such a case to the grand jury and I suspect if such tape existed I would have never got the case as the police would have already cleared him.

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Even though you had a video showing the cop was in Las Vegas at time of the death? That seems odd, unethical and wasteful, but then I don't understand law.

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
That is an easy one to answer. Instead of 30 days of testimony and evidence I would have simply summarized all the evidence in favor of indictment, spent at most a day on it and then recommend charges. The jurors would have voted if there was enough evidence for probable cause nothing more. All the other stuff would be sorted out at trial which is how it is supposed to be done.

jatki

Dec 9, 2014
7:31am

Block User

SHOCKER: The federal autopsy on Brown was the same as the other two.

It sure seems like there was a tremendous amount of time,energy and resources wasted over this whole situation.

"...Many of the documents contained information that was similar or identical to the materials that McCulloch released on Nov. 24 after a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson in Brown's death. A transcript of testimony from an Air Force pathologist who performed the Justice Department autopsy was included ..."

https://news.yahoo.com/federal-autopsy-released-ferguson-shooting-064512024.html

«‹16 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now