\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Summon: Crim Pro & Wilson/Brown Mastermen

So, what is the standard of proof for determining whether to...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/28/14
Depends on the facts that have yet to be resolved. If Brown ...
dashing lilac home
  10/28/14
Hold on. First, there needs to be 9 out of 12 jurors who ...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/28/14
Well when you say Crim Pro I'm thinking 4th Amendment issues...
dashing lilac home
  10/28/14
Yeah, I'm talking about the grand jury process and what stan...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/28/14
Each juror votes no bill or true bill when the time comes. ...
Pink theatre
  10/28/14
I'm trying to find a way to thank you for trying, while also...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/28/14
PC is a one way street. The defense isnt putting on a case. ...
Pink theatre
  10/28/14
Let's break it down. First, let's talk about the evidenti...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/28/14
Standards of proof rank as follows (low to high): 1-Reasona...
At-the-ready Gaming Laptop
  10/28/14
A couple issues. Your ranking of evidentiary standards ma...
Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse
  10/29/14


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 28th, 2014 6:09 PM
Author: dashing lilac home

Depends on the facts that have yet to be resolved. If Brown was fleeing, as his most favorable narrative would suggest, then the cop needs probable cause to believe that he is armed and a danger to the public. See Tennessee v. Garner. If he was actively engaged with the cop then its pretty easy for the cop to justify his force under an "objective reasonableness" standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604459)



Reply Favorite

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 28th, 2014 6:26 PM
Author: dashing lilac home

Well when you say Crim Pro I'm thinking 4th Amendment issues which is what these cases deal with. When the Grand Jury is looking to indict under the states penal code for 1/2 degree murder that is a whole separate ball game. But it would seem strange for the state to find PC for a murder indictment if the officer's actions were considered reasonable under the 4th amendment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604570)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 28th, 2014 6:50 PM
Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse

Yeah, I'm talking about the grand jury process and what standard of proof must be met to indict, not what elements make up a defense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604727)



Reply Favorite

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)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 28th, 2014 6:55 PM
Author: Shimmering Fragrant Meetinghouse

I'm trying to find a way to thank you for trying, while also conveying that your response was not at all helpful. Suggestions?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604781)



Reply Favorite

Date: October 28th, 2014 6:59 PM
Author: Pink theatre

PC is a one way street. The defense isnt putting on a case. GJ is simply forastate to put on the evidence they have to support an arrest. It can get more conplex than that if the gj uses its powers to subpeona info and do their own digging, but again, they are puppets. If the state can pile up enough evidence, then there is PC. If they come up short, no bill. Defense doesn't try to establish PC that someone didn't commit a crime. There is no defense in the room. Wilson got called and testified, but he doesnt have an attorney asking questions or objecting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2712242&forum_id=2#26604823)



Reply Favorite

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)



Reply Favorite

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)



Reply Favorite

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)