Prosecutor Manipulated Grand Jury

[Vashta Nerada]

Prosecutor Manipulated Tamir Rice Grand Jury

Police officers in the Tamir Rice case rolled up and fatally shot him so fast (less than one second) he had no time to hear or respond to any orders they gave.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cleveland-boy-tamir-rice-wasnt-reaching-pellet-gun-report-n474906

With the patrol car windows rolled up, Tamir Rice could not have heard commands to show his hands.
"The scientific analysis and timing involved do not support any claim that there was a meaningful exchange between Officer Loehmann and Tamir Rice, before he was shot." Wobrock said.


"Even though video shows the police shooting Tamir in less than one second, Prosecutor McGinty hired so-called expert witnesses to try to exonerate the officers and tell the grand jury their conduct was reasonable and justified," the attorneys charged. "It is unheard of, and highly improper, for a prosecutor to hire 'experts' to try to exonerate the targets of a grand jury investigation."

"Then, Prosecutor McGinty allowed the police officers to take the oath and read prepared statements to the grand jury without answering any questions on cross-examination," the attorneys said. "The prosecutor did not seek a court order compelling the officers to answer questions or holding the officers in contempt if they continued to refuse. This special treatment would never be given to non-police suspects."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tamir-rice-case-prosecutor-abused-manipulated-grand-jury/story?id=35979452

[cannon_fodder]

In case anyone didn't know, this is stating the obvious. While I'm not an expert on what kind of grand jury this was (fed, state, local), it appears highly suspect.

There is one set of grand jury indictments for everyone else. Where 99.998% of the time the request results in an indictment. You do not get an attorney. You do not get to produce evidence of your innocents. You do not get experts to contradict anything the government says. Generally, you don't even know what the full accusations are or what they are based on. All the grand jury decides is if the story the prosecutor is telling is plausible enough that a crime might have been committed.

Then there is indictments for police officers, which usually are show trials to prove their innocents. They do get an attorney. They do get to argue their innocents and tell their version of events. They apparently even get to pick and choose which questions they answer. They can hire experts.  Often the government that is supposed to be prosecuting makes overtures to the grand jury not to indict.

Grand juries are almost always rubber stamps for whatever the prosecutor wants.

McGinty said he also recommended that no charges be filed against the officers. After the Grand Jury "heard all the evidence and the applicable law, they were told our recommendation," the prosecutor's office said. "But they made the final decision."

Can you fathom a prosecutor saying that in any other situation? Of course not. Can you fathom a prosecutor hiring an expert to testify that they should not indict? Of course not. Because it doesn't happen.

It was a farce. I can't say if the officer should be indicted or not, but this was "equal treatment under the law" in the sense that some people are more equal than others.

[Vashta Nerada]

Can you fathom a prosecutor saying that in any other situation? Of course not. Can you fathom a prosecutor hiring an expert to testify that they should not indict? Of course not. Because it doesn't happen.

It was a farce. I can't say if the officer should be indicted or not, but this was "equal treatment under the law" in the sense that some people are more equal than others.

How A Prosecutor Managed To Blame A 12-Year-Old For Getting Killed By A Cop

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tamir-rice-timothy-mcginty_5681d451e4b014efe0d91562