On Thursday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election meddling and its potential ties to the Trump campaign, impaneled a grand jury. Twitter exploded. The casual observer quickly became a legal expert; it’s only a matter of time before President Donald Trump is indicted and impeached, many concluded. Not necessarily. So what exactly is a grand jury? And what does Mueller’s move portend for Trump’s fortunes?

Grand Jury v. Trial Jury

A grand jury is distinct from a trial jury in a number of ways. For one, a grand jury consists of more jurors than a trial jury, comprised of anywhere between 16 to 23 jurors. The primary function of a grand jury is to issue a preliminary decision on whether or not a prosecutor should indict a defendant. The road to making that decision is a long one: grand jury investigations can last months or even years.

In conducting an investigation, a grand jury has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. According to Solomon Wisenberg, a white collar criminal defense attorney, grand juries have a broad mandate when subpoenaing witnesses. He said: “Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority.”

Grand jury investigations are private affairs. The defense is not present, nor are there any cross examinations. In fact, lawyers are not even allowed to be present during a grand jury’s deliberations.

What Does This Mean for Trump?

It is too early to tell if Mueller’s decision to form a grand jury will lead to an indictment of Trump or any of his campaign associates. In order for the grand jury to determine Trump’s actions warrant criminal charges, they will have to determine probable cause exists. Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury essentially means that the investigation is entering a new, potentially lengthy stage that may or may not lead to an indictment.

Mueller took charge of the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The investigation then fell to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller as the special counsel. Trump’s campaign and its potential ties to the Kremlin are also under investigation by the Senate and House.

According to people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry, he is moving beyond Trump’s involvement with Russia’s election meddling, and into Trump’s finances and real estate dealings. Because of their wide scope, grand jury investigations can take prosecutors down roads previously unseen–roads that can sometimes lead to an indictment.

Bill Clinton’s Impeachment

In 1998, Bill Clinton became the first president to testify as the subject of a grand jury investigation. His testimony, which lasted for four hours, was the coda to independent counselor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal. But while Starr’s four-year investigation began with examining real estate deals in Arkansas, it ended with him examining Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton lied under oath, and continued to lie in his grand jury testimony, according to Starr. Clinton has denied that he ever misstated facts–he has said his answers were all “legally accurate.” Starr disagreed, and eventually indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him after a five-week trial.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Mueller Grand Jury appeared first on Law Street.

After more than a year of investigating, a grand jury in Cleveland, Ohio, declined Wednesday to charge two officers who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice on November 22, 2014.

Rice was killed outside of a recreational center after officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback mistook his toy pellet gun for a real weapon.

In an afternoon press conference announcing the verdict, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty called the shooting a “perfect storm of human error.” McGinty credited a recent enhancement of the surveillance video of the shooting with the jury’s decision, claiming the close up was “indisputable evidence” that Tamir was drawing the toy gun from his waistband as officer Loman exited the police car.

The initial surveillance footage showing officer Loman shooting Rice just seconds after arriving on scene became a major rallying point for the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Further investigation into the 911 call also revealed that the caller told the dispatcher that the gun was “probably fake” and held by a “juvenile.”

Both the verdict and McGiny’s explantation of the ruling offended many users on social media who were seeking justice for the slain child. Under the trending hashtag #TamirRice thousands of people began publicly voicing their disapproval.

We’re told the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So who stops a bad cop with a gun? #TamirRice

— seasonal spice (@goldengateblond) December 28, 2015

“land of the free” if you’re a straight white non Muslim male. That’s in the small print guys. what kind of system murders kids. #TamirRice — Moneer Elmasseek (@Pharaohofhearts) December 28, 2015

McGinty asked the community to “respect the process” – a process which does not, and has never, respected them. #TamirRice

— laura louise (@LauraLBishop) December 28, 2015

This #TamirRice case needs 2 go 2 the #SupremeCourt. Ohio is an OPEN CARRY state. White ppl walking around with guns & they don’t get killed — Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) December 28, 2015

I’m exhausted… #TamirRice

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) December 28, 2015

It’s easy to see where their outrage comes from, when an institutional bias toward black men makes them statistically more likely to be killed by police.

Research has shown that police shootings are disproportionately skewed towards young black males. Movements like #BlackLivesMatter have helped to educate the public on this disgustingly inhumane trend, but still each month more black men are killed by those sworn to serve and protect them.

Accidents do happen, but making these officers accountable for their actions is a necessary step in fixing the problem.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Grand Jury Declines Criminal Charges for Officers in Tamir Rice Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that surprised probably no one, but saddened many, a Texas grand jury declined to indict any of the jail staff for the death of Sandra Bland. Bland, 28, was found dead in her cell at the Waller County Jail after being arrested during a routine traffic stop. While her death was ruled a suicide, the entire nature of the situation–the seemingly excessive force used during the stop, and the mysterious circumstances surrounding her untimely death–raised suspicions and criticisms. The grand jury will be meeting again to determine charges against others, including Officer Brian Encinia who originally pulled Bland over and arrested her, but many are pessimistic that charges will not be filed against him either.

Sandra Bland is another entry on a horrifyingly long list of Black Americans who have died at the hands of police officers or in police custody; the police officers or other officials involved in their deaths have overwhelmingly not been charged with any wrongdoing. Bland’s family has called the grand jury procedure that ended in no indictments a “sham,” and the family is moving forward with a wrongful death suit against state and local authorities.

It’s surprising, in a legal sense at the very least, that the grand jury didn’t find any wrongdoing on the part of the jail staff. The forms filled out when she was brought to jail do indicate that she was depressed and had exhibited suicidal tendencies in the past–that should have led to jail officials keeping a closer eye on her, per procedures from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.

But there are multiple other instances throughout Bland’s case where strong arguments can be made that the law was broken–beginning with the traffic stop that landed her in jail in the first place. What happened during that stop isn’t so much at issue; video from Encinia’s dash cam as well as a bystander video has long been available to the public. The stop itself was seemingly legal–although there are certainly very convincing concerns about whether or not she would have been stopped in the first place had she been white–but Encinia’s actions after that point are questionable.

The stop quickly escalated into an argument over Bland’s cigarette that ended with Encinia pulling Bland out of the car and arresting her–yet that flies in the face of a recent Supreme Court ruling that states that routine traffic stops can’t be extended unless there’s evidence that the driver has committed another crime, or there’s a safety issue in play. So, the question of whether or not the altercation that led to her arrest stemmed from a legal action on her part will be one that the grand jury has to weigh in its probing of Encinia’s actions.

So, questions about Sandra Bland’s treatment certainly aren’t over, but the fear that Encinia won’t face any charges seems warranted. As Cannon Lambert, one of the attorneys representing the Bland family, stated “if he [officer Encinia] was going to charged, you’d think he’d be charged already. The evidence that they need is flat out on the videotape.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Grand Jury Declines to Indict Prison Staff for Death of Sandra Bland appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is often considered to be one of the “necessary evils” of life. Some people are lucky enough to never get the summons, while others seem to be prime choices. But few people know what to do once they get that summons in the mail, and fewer still know about the judicial history and roles that juries play. Read on to learn about the intricacies of the American jury process.

Why do we have juries?

Though it is often maligned, serving on a jury is an important civil service that allows us to have fair trials. Many consider this act to be one of the best ways that citizens can assure that the judiciary holds up our rights and liberties. Each potential member of a jury will first receive a mailing. Any other form of contact, including phone calls and in person visits, should be considered fraud and reported.

A jury is promised to citizens of the United States in the Constitution:

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Juries are representatives from the community that make up a cross section of that community; rarely will there be two people who are alike. The goal is to be as impartial and fair as possible when trying to reach a verdict.

There are slight differences between juries in civil and criminal cases, but both are given clear instructions on what they need to decide. In a civil case, the burden of proof o the plaintiff, or the obligation to prove what one says, is much lower than the burden of proof on the prosecutor in a criminal case. The burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case the burden is “preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not, in most cases.

To serve on a jury, one must:

• Be a United States citizen.
• Be at least 18 years of age.
• Reside primarily in the judicial district for one year.
• Be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form.
• Have no disqualifying mental or physical condition.
• Not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
• Never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored).

However, some people can still avoid jury duty even if they meet the above requirements, such as members of the armed forces on active duty, police and firemen, and “public officers” of local, state, or federal governments. These people are not likely to receive a mailing from the state, but in such a case they often can just call in and report the problem. With only a few exemptions, including being physically unable to get to the courthouse, there are few other reasons that a person would be allowed to call in with an excuse–everyone else must fill out the form they received and show up on the given day.

Are there any controversies over juror eligibility? 

As our nation grows and changes, questions about who exactly can be on a jury have evolved. A recent example includes a 2013 California bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to serve on juries. California assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) did not want to change any of the other stipulations for serving on a jury, but hoped that this particular bill would reduce the amount of times one person would have to serve on a jury, and would also “help integrate immigrants into the community.” The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who said, “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Still, it helped to raise questions about who exactly should serve on a jury.

There are also concerns about the age at which one can serve on a jury–questions are raised that 18 may be too young, or on the flip side, not young enough. In George v. United States, a minor defendant who was under indictment for violation of the Selective Service Act of 1948 challenged the exclusion of minors from the grand jury. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, upholding the right to exclude minors from jury service.

What does a jury do?

Serving on a jury is a very formulaic procedure that requires a lot of “hurry up a wait” timing. Each step is meticulously thought out, but just takes time because of the sheer amount of people that they call at one time.

Here’s how the process is supposed to go: You’ll be expected to bring photo identification (driver’s license, state ID card, student ID) so that they can verify your identity and jury summons. Then you will sit and wait while everyone else checks in and things happen behind the scenes. Eventually, you may be subject to a voir dire. Voir Dire is “the second stage of jury procedures, and is the process by which the court and the attorneys narrow down the pool of juries to the 12 people that will decide the case.” How this happens largely depends on the state, the case, and even the specific judge. You may be asked questions so that the lawyers can determine who is going to be fair and able to listen to the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions. Lawyers are trained to look at every single thing you do while answering the questions; as a result, people are often released for reasons that may seem unclear.

The lawyers are looking for anything that may make the potential juror biased against the person he or she is defending. Some of those disqualifiers may be personal knowledge of the case, or prejudicial views. Others include:

• Negative pretrial publicity.
• A connection to law enforcement.
• Being a victim in a similar case.
• A past connection with someone involved in the trial.

Jurors can also be disqualified for falling asleep, illness, contact with the defendant, or bringing outside information into the court.

What problems are there in jury selection?

One of the biggest problems that comes from juries and jury selection is that “well rounded” aspect that they go for–often, it isn’t as well rounded as they had hoped. One of the biggest problems in recent memory was the grand jury in the Ferguson case: the jury was largely white, middle-class people on the older side.

According to CNS News:

The grand jury is composed of 12 people “selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens,” according to Missouri law. The jury is 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white, but about two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black. Brown was black. The officer is white.

While a grand jury is a slightly different process, this example highlights the difficulty of finding a good cross section of people to serve on an unbiased jury.

Sometimes the problem isn’t always with who is included in the jury, but who was excluded and why. The Equal Justice Initiative explains that many African American jurors are excluded from juries because lawyers sometimes think that they won’t be unbiased, explaining:

In Powers v. Ohio, 141 the United States Supreme Court held that jurors have a right not to be excluded based on their race, yet race-based exclusion continues to stigmatize growing numbers of Americans.

Serving on a Jury

If you are one of the “lucky” few, you are then sworn in by the judge. You will receive some basic notes about what you can and cannot do during the trial. Both sides will remind you not to make decisions until you have heard everything, and you will be encouraged to pay attention to every little detail. During the trial, you will not be allowed to talk to anyone about what is going on inside the courtroom; this rule includes members of your family, or reporters who might want a scoop.

After the trial starts, you may be shuffled back and forth a few times depending on what is argued. From there, you can just expect discussions and explanations from many different people. Each case is handled differently depending on the evidence and the people present. Eventually you will hear the closing arguments and move to deliberation.

The first step of the verdict is usually to select a spokesperson whose “role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict.” The jury is also free to ask questions or look closely at evidence. They then have to deliberate away from any other people. If something goes wrong, like a juror speaking to an outside party, or if a juror seems “off,” they can be removed. Deliberations may take a few hours, or they could take days. In some cases, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous decision. While in some courts having ten out of 12 people agree still serves as a valid decision, others will call it a hung jury and declare a mistrial.

However, there is another controversial choice that few people know about–jury nullification.

Jury Nullification

When many people serve on a jury, they often think that they have two options to decide upon: guilty or not guilty. However, there is a third option that few people know about–jury nullification, or the practice of saying “not guilty” in a case involving a law you feel is unjust. Basically, the jury feels that the defendant does not deserve that particular punishment for what he or she did.

This is a jury’s way of saying, “by the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty, but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.”

For a full explanation, see the video below.

 Conclusion

Some people love serving on a jury while others hate it–it all really depends on what kind of person you are; however, it is one of your duties as a citizen, and the chances of you actually serving are very low. While the juror system has evolved significantly over time, and there are still questions that routinely pop up, it stands strong as one of the tenets of the American justice system.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Courts: Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses

New York Western District Courts: Frequently Asked Questions – Jury Duty

U.S. Courts: Jury Service

Additional

American Bar Association: How Courts Work

Cornell: Sixth Amendment

FindLaw: How Are Potential Jurors Selected?

Fox News: California Bill Would Let Illegal Immigrants Serve on Juries

New American: New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

American Bar: Effective Voir Dire

Bloomberg View: Ferguson’s Grand Jury Problem

Court Listener: George v. United States

Find Law: What is the Role of a Jury in a Criminal Case

Fully Informed Jury Association: Can a Juror Be Removed?

The People’s Law Library of Maryland: What to Expect the Day You Go to Court

Lawyers: Excluding Jurors: Removing and Disqualifying

The New York Times: Jury Duty? Prepare for Rejection; Though Many Are Called, Few Ever Deliberate

Primer: Five Easy Steps For Surviving Jury Duty

The Pennsylvania Code: Conduct of Jury Trial

Truth Out: Jury Nullification: Why Every American Needs to Learn This Taboo Verdict

Wise Geek: What Happens When There’s a Hung Jury?

Flex Your Rights: Nine Arguments for Nullification Debunked

Lifehacker: Eight Myths About Jury Duty, Debunked

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Can Expect When You’re Called For Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

One of my favorite parts of my job here at Law Street is that I get to work with incredibly intelligent individuals with whom I occasionally disagree. Blogger Allison Dawson is one of those people. Today, she wrote a piece entitled “Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions.” It’s a great take–but I think there are a couple important points missing.

For some context, here’s the background: in light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment, and this:

The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.

There’s a crucial part there that I want to make sure we’re all very cognizant of, and that’s that a Columbia Law student can’t just walk into Dean Rigas’ office and say “hey, I’m feeling weird about these indictments, can I take those exams later?”

The Academic Procedures outlined by Columbia make it pretty clear that petitioning to not take an exam isn’t really an easy practice. It certainly seems that a petition is by no means a guarantee to skip an exam, and that Columbia takes petitions pretty seriously. Columbia’s policy states:

Some petitions can be decided on within two to seven business days; others may require a meeting of the Rules Committee or the faculty and will take longer. It is advisable to make your petition as early as possible and not to assume the results of a petition.

A follow-up letter makes it seem like they really would only allow someone to postpone an exam under rather dire circumstances. The Vice Dean for Curriculum, Avery Katz wrote:

Accordingly, students who wish to request a rescheduled exam, or other similar accommodation, should either write to the office of Registration Services with an individual explanation of the basis of the request, or speak in person with an academic counselor in the Office of Student Services.  Unless time pressure is severe, meeting with an academic counselor is the preferred alternative, in case our student services staff can offer support or other resources that may be helpful.

I truly hope that if anyone uses this to try to get out of taking an exam, that Columbia would catch it with its policies. To anyone trying that, here’s a message to you: you’re a shitty person, and you are making it harder for those who actually do need to postpone an exam. Honestly, I highly doubt that many people will end up asking to postpone their exams because of these grand juries, or that Columbia will honor those requests.

All that being said, the fact that Columbia Law is recognizing that the grand jury announcements could have been triggering for a student is excellent. I agree with Allison that our future lawyers need to be able to accept and learn from the outcomes of our legal system, but I think that’s oversimplifying what those failures to indict really mean. The grand jury decisions were symptoms of significantly larger issues in our justice system, like racial inequality, police brutality, and a culture of violence. The protests that have continued all around the nation show that these conversations didn’t stop when those grand juries made their decisions.

No one gets to dictate what could cause someone to have emotional or mental difficulties and need help. Columbia Law has policies in place that allow students to make their case if they are suffering from anything that would impede performance on exams. The letter that went out yesterday just clarified that. There will of course always be people who try to take advantage of the policy, and I truly hope Columbia Law is able to identify those people. But the fact that Columbia is taking such a progressive view on mental health and triggers is truly refreshing. It’s the thought that counts, and for Columbia Law, this truly was a good thought.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

There are some things that I have a hard time understanding and this is one of those instances. Columbia Law School has announced that it will allow its students to postpone their exams.

Why, you ask? Well my lovelies “the law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period,” reads interim dean Robert Scott’s message to students this weekend. “In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled,” Scott continued. Scott is referencing the recent non-indictment decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

I understand that there are some differences of opinion in both cases over the grand juries’ decisions, but for a law school to concede to the notion that its own law students have been traumatized by them is just baffling. These students are literally spending entire months learning about the law but somehow may not be able to handle the outcomes of our justice system? Where is the logic in that? Columbia Law School just basically said that its law students do not understand the very thing they are learning.

Should a student have his own opinion and perspective on a subject? Absolutely! But should he be allowed to take advantage of the situation and get away with postponing his exams? Absolutely NOT!

If students cannot handle the decision of a grand jury, and fully understand that process, then they should drop out of school and find a new profession. Not everyone is indicted. Not everyone wins their case This should be the perfect time to teach students about the process, not coddle them. Plus, let’s be realistic: some of these students will take full advantage of a situation to buy themselves a little more time to study or do things they otherwise would not be able to do if they actually took their finals on the dates already scheduled.

Interim Dean Scott also states that “for some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality.” So, what it seems that he’s saying is that law students could very well have lost their respect and passion for the law because the grand jury’s made a decision based off of facts and testimony? I’m more miffed by the fact that this man thinks that law students will lose respect for the law because the grand jury did its job!

Laws are not perfect, people are not perfect and things don’t always go the way that you want, but to not be able to handle that reality is concerning.

I can appreciate that Columbia Law School is trying to take care of its students but this is not the way to go. Embrace the controversy and make this a learning moment for all.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday night the highly anticipated case of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson reached its conclusion. The grand jury found that it did not have sufficient evidence to indict Wilson. In light of this controversial result, there has been speculation as to whether Brown’s family will bring a civil lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department.

The Brown family would have to show that Wilson intentionally or negligently killed Brown. The family could sue Wilson and city officials for economic damages, such as lost future income and funeral expenses, as well as punitive damages.

Although there were no criminal charges brought against Wilson, Brown’s family might have a better chance at succeeding in a civil lawsuit due to the lower burden of proof. In criminal court, a case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to validate a criminal conviction. In other words, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of reasonable persons that the defendant is guilty. Contrastingly, in a civil lawsuit the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the Brown family would have to show that Wilson was more likely liable than not.

In the past, there have been cases similar to this, where a plaintiff’s family was successful in such suits. Most notably was the wrongful death lawsuit against former athlete O.J. Simpson. Although a jury acquitted Simpson of murder, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death of his former wife and her friend and ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages to their families.

Although the aftermath of the criminal case is still being felt all over the country, it will be interesting to see how the civil lawsuit plays out once things settle down.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Will There Be a Wrongful Death Suit? appeared first on Law Street.

The entire nation is still reeling from the announcement on Monday night that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted in the August 9, 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Now this has never been a simple case. Since Brown was shot, there have been protests, contentious police response to the protests, and national scrutiny. There have been conflicting statements from eyewitnesses, different forensic accounts, and I think it’s safe to say we’ll never be 100 percent sure what went down between Brown and Wilson.

People were mad when Wilson was not indicted, and understandably so. Of course, being indicted does not necessarily mean that Wilson did anything wrong. It means that the grand jury thought there was enough evidence for a jury of Wilson’s peers to decide whether or not he was guilty. They were not there to decide guilt or innocence–that’s what a jury trial itself is for. But the Ferguson grand jury did not have that evidence, so it did not make that decision.

A lot of people blamed the grand jury for not indicting Wilson, but I don’t–the jurors could only work with what was given to them. In fact, I think it’s more important to look at who gave them the evidence they would need, or lack thereof. Part of the idea of the grand jury is that it’s a testing ground for a prosecutor, but there’s also a lot of prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor gets to present his case–what he would show in court to try to convict the defendant.

Now what prosecutor Robert McCulloch did sounded good to the untrained ear. He basically gave the grand jury all the evidence. All the conflicting reports, confusing facts, and messy evidence that has marked this case from the beginning. And he didn’t much appear to advocate for the indictment of Wilson. In fact, he seemed to emphasize the evidence that showed that Wilson was acting in self defense.

One legal analyst and trial lawyer, Lisa Bloom, argues that McCulloch basically used kid gloves with Wilson through a takedown of his presentation to the grand jury. You can read the entire thing here, and believe me, it’s a good read. But here are a couple of the most damning points she makes:

McCulloch seemed flummoxed by the novelty of conflicting evidence. In 28 years I have never had a case WITHOUT conflicting evidence.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Maybe we should take up a collection to teach the Ferguson prosecutors how to cross examine an adverse witness. Step 1: ask tough questions

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

An attorney who does not aggressively cross-examine the target of an investigation is an attorney who does not want to get to the truth.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Bloom is basically arguing that McCulloch didn’t try very hard to provide a compelling case to indict Wilson, for whatever reason. And she’s not the only one. The National Bar Association made the following statement:

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.

Cops rarely get prosecuted for shooting civilians, and part of that is because of the way that the law is written. Police officers are usually given the benefit of the doubt, and understandably so–a police officer wouldn’t be able to do his or her job if they weren’t able to protect themselves. But when and if there’s an incident where the officer may have acted illegally, they should be held accountable. I don’t know what happened in Ferguson. I have my ideas and my opinions, but at the end of the day I simply do not know. But I can’t imagine that a trial in which it all gets sorted out could have been a bad thing. It was up to the prosecutor to make his case, and he didn’t. That’s why there’s no trial.

What happened in Ferguson on that August day is not an isolated incident. It’s difficult to find actual numbers, but we know that since August 9, 2014 14 other teenagers–or children even younger–have been shot by police. Between 1999 and 2011, African Americans have comprised 26 percent of those shot by police, despite the fact that only 13.2 percent of our population is black. Black male teens are 21 times more likely than their white counterparts to be killed by cops. Some of those shootings may be legally justified, but I can’t imagine that every single one is.

This is a conversation that our legal system needs to have.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson Grand Jury’s Decision Not to Indict Wilson: Was It Right? appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.