A grand juror who wants to speak out about the way the evidence was presented to the jury in the Darren Wilson case – as well as the public’s perceptions of the deliberations – sued St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch on Monday, January 5 in attempt to lift the lifetime gag order.
Without permission from a court, the grand juror could be charged with a misdemeanor for discussing the jury’s investigation into the shooting death of unarmed teen Michael Brown Jr. on August 9.
On November 24, the jury declined to indict Wilson, who was then a Ferguson police officer, in Brown’s death.
The lawsuit, filed on Monday in federal court in St. Louis, states that the plaintiff (only referred to as “Grand Juror Doe”) believes the evidence in Wilson’s case was presented much differently than in the hundreds of other cases the jury members heard during their term, “with the insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrongdoer.”
“From plaintiff’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. “From plaintiff’s perspective, the presentation of the law to which the grand jurors were to apply the facts was made in a muddled and untimely manner compared to the presentation of the law in other cases presented to the grand jury.”
The lawsuit also questions the way McCulloch chose to characterize the grand jurors’ collective views toward the evidence when he announced the jury’s decision on November 24.
“In plaintiff’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate – especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit states.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri is representing the grand juror, who is identified as a St. Louis County resident. McCulloch is named as a defendant, since he would be the person to bring charges against Juror Doe.
On November 24, McCulloch released some evidence from the case, including transcripts, reports, interviews, and forensic evidence. However, the suit questions whether McCulloch “has truly provided transparency.”
“From plaintiff’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit states.
The 12-person jury — which included nine white and three black members — heard more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. On December 19, McCulloch said he knew some of the witnesses were lying under oath but allowed them to testify anyway with no regrets.
His statement came after questions were raised about Witness 40, who said she saw Brown charge Wilson shortly before he shot and killed Brown. McCulloch said the “lady clearly wasn’t present” and that she probably came up with the story after reading the newspaper to back up Wilson’s account. However, he said he made a decision early on to allow everyone who claimed to have witnessed the incident to testify before the grand jury.
Many believe Witness 40’s testimony highly influenced the jury’s decision, but McCulloch argued that the grand jurors knew her account was not credible. Yet with the 12 grand jurors sworn to silence, they cannot say whether that is true or not.
Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said the rules of secrecy must be lifted in this “highly unusual circumstance.” He also believes his client’s experience could contribute to the public dialogue concerning race relations.
“The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror’s First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis,” Rothert said. “The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a life-time gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent.”
Other complaints against McCulloch
Later on Monday, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund submitted a letter to Judge Maura McShane, the presiding judge of the 21st Judicial Circuit in Missouri, asking for the court to conduct an investigation of the grand jury proceedings. In the nine-page letter, the group highlighted parts of the proceedings transcripts where the prosecutors used questionable tactics.
“Our review of these proceedings has raised grave legal concerns, including knowing presentation of false witness testimony, erroneous instructions on the law, and preferential treatment of Mr. Wilson by the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney’s office,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the fund’s president and director-counsel.
To “restore public confidence” in the St. Louis County justice system, the group asked the court to take action, including convening a new grand jury or appointing a special prosecutor pursuant to Missouri law.
Also on Monday, seven citizens filed a misconduct complaint with the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which handles attorney discipline in the state. It accuses McCulloch and assistants Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley of failing as prosecutors to represent their client – the citizens of St. Louis County. Alizadeh and Whirley were in charge of presenting the Wilson case to the grand jury.
Among the allegations is that the prosecutors knowingly allowed witnesses to lie to the grand jury, and they acted more like “Wilson’s defense attorneys.”
Lawsuit: http://www.aclu-mo.org/files/4214/2047/0504/Grand_Jurur_Doe_Complaint_1-5-15.pdf
NAACP letter: http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/NAACP%20LDF%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Judge%20Maura%20McShane.pdf
