Interesting link. I've never disagreed with the likelihood of the prosecutor not handling the case properly (too early in any case). I've only said that the grand jury couldn't reach much of a different conclusion (aside from the fact if they rubber stamped or not).

I'm not sure how the perjury surrounding the warrant would affect the probable cause for 2nd degree murder though. The causality between that and the shooting is pretty tenuous. Acting wantonly requires the defendant to be aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Presumably, he should then have been aware of the risk of shooting an innocent at the moment he lied in the affidavit. Proving awareness and conscious disregard with respect to that seems impossible due to the remoteness between the two circumstances.

I also think Walker's shot would be a supervening event breaking whatever causal chain you could establish from the perjury.

I think it's important to remember the law is not about justice - it's policy expressed in law. Not every miscarriage of justice can be fixed in the court room. Not until a lot of laws change. And that will be too late for Breonna Taylor.

@Benkei @Hanover @Ciceronianus the White @Maw

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/09/27/uofl-samuel-marcosson-breonna-taylor

So all of "the available facts" are still not out and there's no reason to assume they were presented to the Grand Jury. Don't suspect a "cover-up"? Okay. The truth will come out (as it usually does). — 180 Proof

An anonymous Grand Juror files suit to compel the Prosecutor's office to release transcripts of the secret Grand Jury Proceedings concerning the police raid on the deceased Breonna Taylor's apartment with which a Judge agreed and ordered yesterday (Sept. 28, 2020) in the interest of transparency and public confidence with the State's investigation of the role of the police officers in Ms. Taylor's death. The disclosure of charges considered or not considered and evidence presented or not presented by the Prosecutor to the Grand Jury will be released tomorrow (Sept. 30, 2020). :point:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/28/grand-juror-files-suit-seeking-release-transcript-breonna-taylor-case/3568388001/

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for charges of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing.

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for a charge of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing. — 180 Proof

It sounds like a grand juror watched the news and compared it what they heard in the grand jury room and felt their decision would have been different had they heard what was on the news. If this results in new charges being brought, the question will be whether the evidence was withheld from the grand jury because (1) the prosecutor is well aware that the additional charges will not result in convictions, or (2) the prosecutor wanted to protect the police officers who he has a cozy relationship with.

If #1, this is stupid. If #2, justice will prevail. I'll stayed tuned for the outcome, but I have my prediction.

For the record, I do think if it's #1, the prosecutor shouldn't have tried to hide behind the grand jury to do his dirty work, but he just should have stepped up to the podium, explained his decision as to what he was going to charge, and dealt with the consequences. Or, he could have provided the grand jury every scrap of evidence and offered his opinion as to what they ought to do. Leadership involves making difficult and unpopular decisions sometimes and now he has to deal with lack of transparency allegations.

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for charges of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing. — 180 Proof

I don't like the use of grand juries. I hope a complete record is produced (I don't know the details of the Judge's decision). If it doesn't make clear whether the result of the proceeding was just, I hope it will at least serve to demonstrate the flawed and potentially perverse (a sort of prosecutorial perversion of the course of justice) nature of this tool available to the state.

For you to have an issue with the decision of the grand jury, you need to have grounds to do so. Based on what is known about this case, there's nothing that gives reason to assume it's the wrong decision. — Benkei

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/30/headlines/kentucky_ag_didnt_recommend_murder_charges_for_breonna_taylors_killers

... thus, more grounds for suspicion of the grand jury proceeding. Transcripts / audio recordings of the prosecutor's case made (& not made) to the grand jury to be released on Friday, Oct. 2nd.

update:

Addendum

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/12/texas-galveston-black-man-horse-rope

Uh... You know it looks bad and you do it anyway?

Follow up:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/breonna-taylor-grand-juror-homicide-charges

This thread is too long to read through, so I'm going to add my 2 cents knowing it's probably duplicate.

99% of the arguments against systemic racism seem to be based on a misapprehension of what the term means. e.g. Ben Shapiro made a long video that essentially contained one argument: that there is no shady cabal conspiring to keep black people down.
Well, sorry Ben, but even assuming your assertion is true, that's not what systemic racism means.

It just means that a particular group or institution unfairly racially discriminates for whatever reason. No conspiracy or nefarious plan required. So it's enough to just show different treatment by banks, police etc (possibly correcting for things like income disparities, depending on what data we're looking at).

I'm trying to figure out what your point was in our earlier discussion. If, based on the available evidence, the prosecutor made the correct call that homicide charges wouldn't stick then all this is just bad PR but essentially won't change anything.

Is the point you want the prosecutor to prosecute any way so that this is all further investigated during the trial?

I don't know how it works in the USA but in the Netherlands a prosecutor decides on whether and what to prosecute independently. You can petition the court to force the prosecutor to prosecute a case he refused to prosecute earlier. Is this option open in the USA as well?

Based on the information that is publicly available, I don't expect homicide charges to stick either. So either there's non-public evidence or the case has not been sufficiently investigated yet and there's more evidence out there. The last two articles you shared don't seem to be about that though.

It just means that a particular group or institution unfairly racially discriminates for whatever reason. No conspiracy or nefarious plan required. So it's enough to just show different treatment by banks, police etc (possibly correcting for things like income disparities, depending on what data we're looking at). — Mijin

And it means that society in general either accepts it, isn't aware of it, or condemns it, but doesnt know what to do about it.

I think it means it rises out of history so that it just seems like part of the social furniture.

I don't know if there is "systemic" racism, but I know this: All this murderous fury of the Black Lives Matter has its origins in the instruction of the Frankfurt School who ordered to give any racial conflict the meaning of an class struggle.

Really? Do you not think that a few ten of thousands of murdered, plus hundreds of thousands threatened and under threat, and millions subjected and subject to prejudice, discrimination, and persecution might just have a teeny bit to do with it?

No, it was definitely a bunch of German theorists from multiple decades ago who BLM never cite that are most certainly responsible for BLM.

It just means that a particular group or institution unfairly racially discriminates for whatever reason. No conspiracy or nefarious plan required. — Mijin

:up: The key thing to add here is perpetuates; what makes systemic racism 'systemic' is the perpetuation of racial inequality, it's reproduction in time and space (rather than just some kind of sheer quantitative degree of discrimination - although these things go hand in hand). But yeah, the conspiracy stuff is nuts.

@Benkei ...

Follow up:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/breonna-taylor-grand-juror-homicide-charges — 180 Proof

Maybe a little clearer how criminal injustice work in this Banana Republican country:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/us/breonna-taylor-grand-jurors/index.html

Thanks. I get this part. Cameron's statement about the murder charges and the grand jury agreeing that they were justified in their return of fire is probably a lie. However, that doesn't mean the conclusion that these charges couldn't stick wasn't the right one. But I agree that the grand jury, especially after asking for it, should've been presented the necessary facts and by not doing so the prosecutor has undermined the grand jury process (especially on how it should work on paper) and this results in undermining the entire case.

@Hanover @Ciceronianus the White @180 Proof Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process?

pretty sure one would be more hard-pressed to argue that it did not exist. right wing propaganda is all enticing and dreamy under the guise of “america is the land of opportunity” and that everyone has a fair shot at succeeding. but as various studies, statistics and the wealth gap that is decently well-known among people who actually cared to seek out the research know this simply isn’t reality.

can’t enslave a group for approximately four centuries, “free” them, and expect them to get put on the same exact level to succeed and grow just as the free people who never were in that condition in the first place, amongst harmful stereotypes and arrogant prejudice.

Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process? — Benkei

That's a criminal law issue, and I've been fortunate enough to avoid that in my practice. I doubt it, though, as grand juries in my limited understanding are merely tools of prosecutors, which they may pick up and drop as they choose. I hope I'm wrong.

Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process? — Benkei

You can't force a prosecutor to prosecute. They are elected officials, so the pressure you can exert upon them can only be political. Not only can you not require a prosecutor to prosecute, he can dismiss (nolle prosequi) whatever indictments a grand jury hands down.

For those very limited instances where you can force a public official to act (or not act), you can read up on writ of mandamus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus#:~:text=Mandamus%20%28%22We%20command%22%29%20is%20a%20judicial%20remedy%20in,and%20in%20certain%20cases%20one%20of%20a%20

Ah, that's how it works in the Netherlands as well. You can only ask the court to order the prosecutor to prosecute.

The real issue here, which I think might be being missed, is that the grand jury is meant to be a protection for the accused, protecting that particular person against frivolous prosecutions. The protection afforded is minimal because the prosecutor retains complete control over the grand juries and decides what they will hear and attempts to persuade them how to decide. It's a protection against the unfettered power of the state.

Grand juries were never meant to assure the general public the right to have all potential crime investigated and then have them decide who will be prosecuted. It's not a general protection for the average citizen to be sure criminals are prosecuted. The Constitution's provisions related to grand juries (the 5th Amendment) protects an accused from the state, not the general citizenry from prosecutors who don't wish to prosecute.

What we have in this case is a prosecutor who realizes, as a public official, that his boss (so to speak) are the voters and he doesn't want to do something that might get him fired. So what he's done is instead of just refusing to prosecute the cops, he's manipulated the grand jury to do his dirty work and issue a no bill on the most significant charges. The prosecutor's efforts to blame the grand jury for the lack of indictments was exposed when a grand juror pointed out how little information she was provided.

All this means is that the prosecutor and the prosecutor alone thought the charges would not lead to a conviction, and he used the grand jury as cover. We need to stop worrying about what the grand jury did or didn't do and what it knew or didn't know. The question is whether the charges could be successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This prosecutor thought not. He should have just said that.

All this means is ... the prosecutor alone thought the charges would not lead to a conviction, ... used the grand jury as cover ... — Hanover

Thus, the apparent - perhaps substantial - injustice: in the U.S., Police Murder nonwhite (& poor white) citizens With Impunity. Re: Breonna Taylor, Walter Wallace, Jacob Blake, et al

I'm not denying there's systemic racism in the US. I'm saying that while the Breonna case has been poorly handled I so far have not seen evidence that homicide charges could be successfully proved.

But that's not the point. The point is the grand jury - not you - did think so, despite the prosecutor having kept incriminating evidence from them, which strongly suggests (not only to me) that the prosecutor did not intend to prosecute independent of whether it's likely or not murder / manslaughter convictions could be secured. You/we only "see" what that corrupt prosecutor so far allows us to see so you/the public "having not seen evidence" is irrelevant, especially in light of what grand jurors claim was sufficient for them to indict the officers. Why are so willing to believe the prosecutor's story and ignore the contrary testimony of grand jurors?

The grand jury has only testified that no evidence for homicides was submitted and when they asked about it the prosecuter said because he didn't think it could stick. He then lied about the process that the grand jury made/agreed to that assessment themselves.

However, none of that is proof that the assessment that homicide charges could not be proved is wrong.

As I set out before, only if you can prove the cops lied about the knock and announce do you have a chance to do convict for homicide charges but there's only one witness who flip-flopped on that outside the 3 cops. And not hearing anything isn't proof it didn't happen. So you're never going to get beyond a reasonable doubt on this unless there's evidence we don't know about.

So yes, based on the available facts I have no reason to believe not prosecuting homicides is the wrong call.

Thus, the apparent - perhaps substantial - injustice: in the U.S., Police Murder nonwhite (& poor white) citizens With Impunity. Re: Breonna Taylor, Walter Wallace, Jacob Blake, et al — 180 Proof

Even assuming the US criminal justice system is riddled with racial injustice, nothing you've said leads me to believe an aggressive prosecutor would secure a conviction in this matter. That is to say, it's entirely possible, and even likely, that the prosecutor's instinct in this case to limit the charges against the officers was correct, even if he hid behind the grand jury to do it, and even if he is a closet screaming racist.

Prosecutors are bound by ethical rules that prohibit them from pressing charges they can't win, even if that deprives the public of feeling there is justice for the victims by just having a trial. I'd submit you overestimate the comfort anyone will receive from an acquittal.

I think it certianly does against all groups or races of peoples including white people I can only offer a point of view but I see all the Pro Black groups to help black people and raise them out of poverty and not just blacks almost all other groups of people's and yet a pro white group does not exist officially in this country my theory is that people want to take other people's rights away because it's easier and slowly we are all taking each others rights away instead of fighting for those same rights for everyone or ourselves we become spiteful because it's hard and give up because it is hard and we take the easy route and take those rights away that were fought for already and that is were society has gone wrong .

Idk to me that's crazy like millions of people died for my freedom my rights and yours and just because I can't have Free stuff I'm going to steal yours ? Stealing to eat and stealing because your mad are two different things too me yeah I'm gonna call you out if you have privledges but I'm not going to make you suffer like me I'm not the type of person who wants you to experience my suffering only to understand it as best I can articulate it too you.

Punctuation please. If you keep posting like these two posts you'll get banned.

>Prosecutors are bound by ethical rules that prohibit them from pressing charges they can't win

Such as? The entire US justice system would grind to a halt and collapse if all, or even half the accused demanded trials. A pillar of American prosecutorial strategy is to overcharge people and use the threat of hefty penalties to secure guilty or nolo contendere charges. For example, only 2% of cases in the Federal system go to trial. Prosecutors readily admit to this strategy. You bring cases you likely can't win as common practice, because the risk to the accused if they are convicted will by high enough to compel a plea. You use the plea to give them the lesser punishment you think they deserve.

However, politics and ambition are involved too, so it's not uncommon that prosecutors will be more/less aggressive based on personal gain or political considerations. The fact that the Feds don't go after marijuana producers in states where it is legal is an example where prosecutorial discretion based on political decision has functionally rewritten the law as exercised. Those are winnable cases they don't pursue. Charging all the protestors who went to the Kentucky AG's house to protest the Breonna Taylor case with felonies was making unwinnable charges to punish and threaten people. An unwinnable case they did pursue, before reversing thanks to politics.

Politics are key. 88 unarmed people sitting on the AG's lawn? 88 felonies as a statement; taking away their right to bear arms or vote. Dozens of armed protestors on the Kentucky governor's lawn to protest social distancing, pointing weapons at the house and hanging the governor in effigy to protest social distancing requirements? No charges.


Having worked in local government for years, no case against police is ever apolitical. Even bar room fights.