Summon: Crim Pro & Wilson/Brown Mastermen
| Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/28/14 | | dashing lilac home | 10/28/14 | | Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/28/14 | | dashing lilac home | 10/28/14 | | Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/28/14 | | Pink theatre | 10/28/14 | | Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/28/14 | | Pink theatre | 10/28/14 | | Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/28/14 | | At-the-ready Gaming Laptop | 10/28/14 | | Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse | 10/29/14 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 28th, 2014 5:54 PM Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
So, what is the standard of proof for determining whether to indict when a cop claims justifiable homicide?
I see "probable cause" and "preponderance of the evidence" thrown around, but can't seem to find any detailed info on how that applies to a claim of self-defense or otherwise justifiable homicide.
This is the best I've found: http://voices.wustl.edu/job-darren-wilson-grand-jury/
School me bros.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604379) |
|
Date: October 28th, 2014 6:13 PM Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
Hold on.
First, there needs to be 9 out of 12 jurors who find "probable cause" that each element of a crime was committed, right?
So, so assuming that is met, do they indict unless 9 out of 12 jurors find "probable cause" on the facts supporting the defense?
Also, WTF is probable cause as an evidentiary standard? More likely than not? How is the jury instructed to determine that?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604490) |
|
Date: October 28th, 2014 6:54 PM Author: Pink theatre
Each juror votes no bill or true bill when the time comes.
PC is the same PC you hear in other contexts.
Edit: jurors are puppets and will find whatever the state wants them to find.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604763) |
|
Date: October 28th, 2014 7:08 PM Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
Let's break it down.
First, let's talk about the evidentiary standard. "Preponderance of the evidence" means that the juror thinks that something probably (more likely than not) happened. Does "probable cause" differ from this standard? How does "probable cause" differ from this?
Second, using whatever evidentiary standard is applicable, 9 out of 12 grand jurors have to conclude that the elements of the crime were committed by Wilson. That much is easy enough (I think).
Third, though, that WUSTL prof (linked above) says that they will also consider whether the shooting was justified. So that certain seems to contradict the notion that the grand jury only needs to conclude there was probable cause that Wilson committed all elements of the crime. It makes it sound like they must also consider whether the evidence supports a defense.
If this is true, what evidentiary standard is applied? What evidence does the prosecution have to provide?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604883)
|
|
Date: October 28th, 2014 11:16 PM Author: At-the-ready Gaming Laptop
Standards of proof rank as follows (low to high):
1-Reasonable suspicion
2-Probable cause
3-Preponderance of evidence
4-Clear and convincing
5-BRD
For GJ State has to present PC that a crime happened and that the suspect committed the crime. Justifications like self defense/crime prevention are affirmative defenses. That's why he testified. He sought to present evidence to the GJ that there was PC to believe he acted with justification. At trial, he would have to prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.
FWIW, GJ will not indict because this case cannot be won at trial.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26606214) |
|
Date: October 29th, 2014 12:37 PM Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
A couple issues.
Your ranking of evidentiary standards makes sense, but I still don't understand what actually constitutes "probable cause" or how the grand jury is instructed as to when that standard is met. It's easy enough to say "more likely than not", and standards like "clear and convincing" are at least a little more descriptive. If you just take the dictionary meaning of "probable" you would end up with a preponderance of the evidence standard.
With regard to the defense, that is separate from probable cause that a crime was committed, no? I view "probable cause that a crime was committed by the defendant" to mean probable cause that the defendant committed each element of the crime (which would be separate from whether any defense is available).
If I'm wrong about that, and any defenses are wrapped up into the "probable cause that defendant committed crime" standard, then does the jury need to have probable cause that his defense is invalid in order to indict?
I don't understand your last point. I understand what you are saying, but it seems to contradict the "probable cause" standard, right?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26608757) |
|
|