NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO INDICT POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON


http://eepurl.com/8DOo9 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                
National Bar Association
November 24, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO INDICT POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON

  1. interesting. My initial, admittedly cynical reaction, was they are bemoaning the loss of an oppurtunity that would have enriched quite a few of their members- not only with the substantial legal teams on both sides of the issues, but the countless lawyers who would be offering opinion on TV, radio, and print.
    My second reaction- from the inquisitive side, wonders if something like this has ever happened before?

    • Terry M Gresham says:

      Grand Jury does not determine innocence or guilt, only whether this would go to trail. There seems to be no reason why this should not have gone to trial except that this was protection of an act of a police officer. We need to know guilt or innocence. For that we need a trial. If he is innocent, then good. But we do not know that since a Grand jury only presents evidence from one side of the equation. .

      • Indeed. And at the same time, per my understanding- the “Grand Jury” system comes out of the “common law” system, and the US is the only country that still uses it. Indeed. And at the same time, per my understanding- the “Grand Jury” system comes out of the “common law” system, and the US is the only country that still uses it.

        From experience- both “academic” and personal- the Grand Jury system remains, in most cases, little more then a rubber stamp of the prosecutor. And in this case the evidence from the beginning was that the prosecutor did not want charges brought.

        The thing that troubles me greatly here is the timing. After 3 months of disrupting the lives of these grand jurors, for the decision to come right before thanksgivng smacks, to me, of a set of jurors giving up/giving in so they can get back to their lives…

        From experience- both “academic” and personal- the Grand Jury system remains, in most cases, little more then a rubber stamp of the prosecutor. And in this case the evidence from the beginning was that the prosecutor did not want charges brought.

        The thing that troubles me greatly here is the timing. After 3 months of disrupting the lives of these grand jurors, for the decision to come right before thanksgivng smacks, to me, of a set of jurors giving up/giving in so they can get back to their lives…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s