More truths have unfolded since the non-indictment of officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, including Prosecutor Attorney Bob McCulloch public commitment to side with the ‘defendant’ in the death of an unarmed black teenager, and now one juror wants to speak out against the grand jury decision.
When the indictment was read, McCulloch stated that the decision to ‘not indict’ Wilson was unanimous with all the jurors [6 whites, and 3 blacks] backed with a clear belief that Wilson was ‘justified’ in killing Michael Brown.
The news was troubling for many [including persons of the legal system] who understood the close relationship between ‘officers’ and ‘prosecutors’ and were all too familiar with the famous modern legal term :
” District Attorney’s now have so much influence on grand juries that ‘by and large’ they could get them to ‘indict a ham sandwich’. “
McCulloch appeared to be the representative of the defendant and not the deceased victim and it was pretty evident as to the reason why?
So what really happened in this case?
According to the court documents, the juror [who goes by the name grand juror doe] wants the federal court to lift the lifetime ban on grand juries talking about their deliberations, and alleges that Prosecutor McCulloch was inaccurate with his statement regarding the unanimous verdict.
The complaint was filed earlier with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. The juror is seeking an injunction from the court to allow the juror to discuss the proceedings without fear of being charged.
Clearly, this juror was one of the few that ‘disagreed’ with the verdict but nonetheless he or she was silenced by majority vote and never to be heard from again given the document of law.
Stay Tuned PLUM’S!