So police are using 'choke holds' which have been outlawed because they kill people. Prosecuting attorney's are handing out old unconstitutional laws in Grand Jury proceedings, and though ianal, or maybe because of it, some questions came to mind about the process of Grand Jury selection and the commissions that decide who sits on them. Cops rarely get indicted and that calls into question the objectivity of the selection process used to form Grand juries it seems to me (putting it gently)
Are states in certain jurisdictions (like Texas) still using, and did St Louis Mo. or Richmond County in Staten Island, New York use a system called "Key man" or "Pick-a-Pal" selection that made up the Grand Jury (unofficially but functionally)? A jury that could not see a probable cause to indict officer Darren Wilson.
Was this same system in place in Staten Island where a Grand Jury didn't see fit to hold the Richmond county police that killed Eric Garner to a trial?
It was once common to have "Blue Ribbon" juries, and Blue ribbon Grand Juries along with White Citizen Councils
Lawrence O'Donnell is asking more questions. Which got me looking at the Grand Jury selection process itself
After reviewing the transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings, Lawrence O'Donnell wrote to Missouri Attorney General and the DA office asking about the mistakes made by the Assistant District attorneys who presented evidence to the Grand jury that investigated the killing of Michael Brown.
Here is the response back from the Mo. attorney General's office:
"Among the problems that Ferguson has brought to light is the need to update Missouri's use of deadly force statute. This statute is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Courts holding in Tennessee v. Garner. Consequently it is important this statute is amended by the Missouri legislature to incorporate the Garner decision and to avoid confusion within the criminal justice system."
- Chris Koster | Missouri Attorney General
Here are the questions that Lawrence O'Donnell submitted to the St. Louis county prosecutors office:
• How many times has MS. Alizadeh submitted the wrong law to a Grand jury as its legal framework for an investigation?
• How many times had the District attorney's office [in general] submitted the wrong law to a Grand jury as its legal framework for an investigation?
• Is the Michael Brown case the first time the District attorney's office submitted the wrong law to a Grand jury as its legal framework for an investigation?
At first Lawrence got no response back from the prosecutors office. Lawrence & his team continued asking. The St. Louis prosecutors office finally came back with this:
" Not at this time"
- Ed Magee | spokesman, St. Louis prosecutors office
So since these prosecutors don't have to answer our questions and Grand juries are secret we have no idea how many time this "mistake" or other mistakes have been made in Missouri or any other state for that matter.
And the way nearly every case of unarmed minorities (and innocent until proven guilty btw) being killed by a police officer has resulted in no indictment has got me asking WTF is going on?
How are these Grand juries that the DA must work with in coordination with the police NOT in some way formed via a Pick-a-Pal system of Grand jury selection? simply using basic mathematical probability as the ruler?
Or even simpler, by watching with our own eyes and ears as the police gun down, strangle, or otherwise cause the death of a non-affluent member of a community while routinely getting off without those deaths warranting a trial. A fundamental questioning of whether or not killing an unarmed person, even a child is justified in "keeping the peace"
It gets worse. At minute 3:28 on video Lawrence O'Donnell has this exchange with St.Louis law professor Susan McGraugh
Lawrence O'Donnell:
"Professor McGraugh, there's the district attorney saying at this time they cannot answer;..How many times they've given the wrong instructions; the wrong legal instructions to a Grand jury. We have no idea how many times the have done that."
Professor McGraugh:
"It's troubling. You know this is the only time that this process has been recorded also. So this is the only time that we would have any indication of what goes on in these secret Grand Jury hearings."
[with informative dialogue but moving ahead]
Professor McGraugh:
"There is no way if there was a Jury trial that a judge, who would monitor the proceedings and ensure that the law given to the jurors is correct, would have allowed this mistake to happen. And it's really just a reminder that we're dependent upon the good judgment and good will of a prosecutor in a Grand jury. Because there is no judge there to ensure that the correct law is given or the correct procedure is followed.
Professor McGraugh then continues explaining that the jurors were obviously confused about the laws and the lack of clarification by the ADA's in charge. The hearing was not properly handled in officer Wilsons hearing.
But what Professor McGraugh said here:
"It's troubling. You know this is the only time that this process has been recorded also. So this is the only time that we would have any indication of what goes on in these secret Grand Jury hearings."
So in most Grand Jury proceedings no one but the prosecutors and the police would have any idea of any shenanigans that go on. How would we know for instance if the
"Key man""pick-a-Pal" system of grand jury selection, even if out dated, wasn't actually still in play?
Based on how often these Grand juries actually come up with a 'True Bill' indicting a Police officer who has killed an AA and other minorities, and the fact that in year 2014 the St. Louis ADA's handed out an old unconstitutional law from 1985, I'd bet that this corrupt system of Grand jury selection is exactly how these juries are chosen. And I don't gamble
# # #
Here is an article demonstrating the Key man Pick-a-Pal system played out in 2003:
Houston grand juries: too white, too law-and-order, and too cozy with cops by Radley Balko | August, 2014
Too cozy, and this case according to the reporting, intimidating witnesses into changing their original story to match that of the police. In this case a police officer was one of the jurors
Under the key-man system, the judge picks one or more people to serve as “commissioners.” The commissioners then choose from a pool of people who have volunteered for grand jury duty.
# # #
Below the doodly divider is mostly just stuff that can be passed up. It's posted for the case law numbers, starting with a quick look at governor Rick Perry's indictment as an example when the collusion made possible by the Pick-a-Pal system is not used.
For an idea of how "Key man" or Pick-a-Pal" Jury selection can change outcomes is this one higher profile example. Beloved by law & order Texas governor Rick Perry was indicted when the "Key Man" jury selection gambit was not used:
The grand jury for Gov. Rick Perry’s indictment was chosen randomly, rather than by using the “key man” practice, which has been criticized as biased - September, 2014
[...]
Austin courts, like those in many of Texas’ larger cities, typically rely on a so-called “key man” selection process, where judges choose a commissioner responsible for recruiting a panel of grand jurors. The practice was not used to seat Mr. Perry’s grand jury because the judge overseeing the case comes from San Antonio [not a republican stronghold], where random selection is preferred.
1978:
The testimony before the magistrate revealed that Mississippi County [Missouri] utilized a "key man" system of jury selection. The master list from which jurors to serve at Ross' trial were drawn was prepared in 1966 from individual voter registration cards. The county clerk read the names from the voter registration lists1 to the jury commissioners.2 As the clerk read the names the commissioners selected individuals they knew personally to make up the jury list. Of the 964 individuals selected for the master list, only 33 (3.4%) were black.
[...]
There is no doubt that Mississippi County's jury selection system presents the opportunity for discrimination. The Supreme Court has accepted the facial constitutionality of the "key man" selection system. See, e. g., Carter v. Jury Commission, 396 U.S. 320, 335-37, 90 S.Ct. 518, 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970); Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 403, 65 S.Ct. 1276, 89 L.Ed. 1692 (1945); Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130-31, 61 S.Ct. 164, 85 L.Ed. 84 (1940). It has, however, noted that the system is susceptible of abuse. See, Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 497, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 479, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954).
Here the commissioners did not select anyone who was not personally known by one of them. Furthermore, all blacks had a "C" following their names. Certainly the commissioners knew the race of every individual selected for the master list. Although the commissioners testified that they did not intentionally discriminate against any racial group, such general denials are not adequate to rebut a prima facie case of jury discrimination. See Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 632, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972); Turner v. Fouche, supra, 396 U.S. at 361, 90 S.Ct. 532.
What this court must decide, then, is whether the ultimate composition of the venire panel and the petit jury corrected any constitutional deficiency in the jury selection process.
We do not believe it did.
The state argues that the group of names from which the petit jury was actually drawn, the venire panel here, is the body that must represent the community. It cites Supreme Court cases allegedly supporting this contention.7
What this argument overlooks is that here the master list from which the venire panels were drawn underrepresented blacks
- emphasis added
1982 (this link is to list some of the case law):
The practice in St. Louis County is to draw one hundred names, at random, from the grand jury wheel. Sec. 496.170, RSMo 1978, requires that a minimum of twenty-four names be drawn. From the list thus created, the Judge in charge of the particular grand jury may use any method, including personal interviews, to select the twelve persons to serve. This discretion plus use of the so-called "key man" system in the initial selection of the grand jury pool admittedly provides at least an opportunity for discrimination. However, neither the "key man" procedure nor the "opportunity" to discriminate rises to a per se constitutional violation. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 478-79 (1953); Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 284 (1949); Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 331-37 (1969). Compare Turner v. Touche, 396 U.S. 346, 355 (1969) (companion case to Carter, supra) and State v. Ramsey, 197 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Mo. banc 1946). Nevertheless, "key man" systems have been found unconstitutional in application. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977).
- emphasis added
# # #
With one last thought. It seems to me that the "pool" of people, those most "available" to participate for long term Grand Jury duty to become part of the jury wheel will also be those that can afford to NOT work every day for a living, giving us Grand juries populated by the affluent (read: connected) while marginalizing those least able to afford the loss of wages and most in need of protection. And as for transparency; there is none nor public or independent oversight which opens another door including the profit incentive hostile to the public by reversing what the police and the judicial system is designed to do - Protect and Serve all of the people equally
Maybe Ohio state Senator Nina Turner is on to something when she suggested on the Ronan Farrow program December 3, 2014; a national re-dux of something like the Kerner commission:
The report's most famous passage warned, "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal."
Its results suggested that one main cause of urban violence was white racism and suggested that white America bore much of the responsibility for black rioting and rebellion. It called to create new jobs, construct new housing, and put a stop to de facto segregation in order to wipe out the destructive ghetto environment. In order to do so, the report recommended for government programs to provide needed services, to hire more diverse and sensitive police forces and, most notably, to invest billions in housing programs aimed at breaking up residential segregation
since as Senator Turner has accurately described, the segregationists are back at it these days and all the reactionary garbage they bring with it financed by the power brokers of the "conservative movement" a safe distance behind, fomenting the division amongst workers. Keeping the struggle away from the actual perpetrators of the bulk of injustices - the 1%ers