http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/fer....html?_r=0

I'm thinking since this case was so high profile, that this juror wants to be able to go and either write a book or do interviews and make some cash.

I could be wrong. However, they know going into being on a Grand Jury that they'll be under a lifetime gag order not to discuss the cases.

(01-06-2015 09:40 AM)gdunn Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/fer....html?_r=0
I'm thinking since this case was so high profile, that this juror wants to be able to go and either write a book or do interviews and make some cash.
I could be wrong. However, they know going into being on a Grand Jury that they'll be under a lifetime gag order not to discuss the cases.

They would still have the right to sue and see if they could get it overturned. Probably not a winnable lawsuit, but nothing precludes filing it.

So Owl.. Forgive my ignorance, but is this common?

The 12 grand jurors heard evidence on Mr. Brown’s death for months, including testimony from Mr. Wilson and several witnesses. Prosecutors did not seek a specific charge and instead gave grand jurors a list of possible charges to consider. The grand juror who is suing said in the lawsuit that the presentation of possible charges was “made in a muddled and untimely manner” compared with other cases that jurors had heard.

Yeah that is because the idiots were screaming and yelling for Wilson to be arrested, tried and convicted before all of the evidence was collected. This is what happens when ghetto hood rats hook up with Holder and Al. There probably was not even enough evidence to go to a grand jury, so of course it all muddled and strange.

(01-06-2015 03:26 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The 12 grand jurors heard evidence on Mr. Brown’s death for months, including testimony from Mr. Wilson and several witnesses. Prosecutors did not seek a specific charge and instead gave grand jurors a list of possible charges to consider. The grand juror who is suing said in the lawsuit that the presentation of possible charges was “made in a muddled and untimely manner” compared with other cases that jurors had heard.

Yeah that is because the idiots were screaming and yelling for Wilson to be arrested, tried and convicted before all of the evidence was collected. This is what happens when ghetto hood rats hook up with Holder and Al. There probably was not even enough evidence to go to a grand jury, so of course it all muddled and strange.

yep....the entire thing is beyond stupid.....forgive my technical use of the word "thing" and "stupid"

(01-06-2015 03:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So Owl.. Forgive my ignorance, but is this common?

Not in my experience. But that doesn't mean it's not possible, just uncommon.

Anybody find a copy of the complaint?

The article seems like the usual media piece that misses for the forest for the legal trees.

(01-06-2015 03:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Anybody find a copy of the complaint?
The article seems like the usual media piece that misses for the forest for the legal trees.

Wouldn't that describe about 95% (and I'm being kind) of articles about court cases?

(01-06-2015 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 03:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Anybody find a copy of the complaint?
The article seems like the usual media piece that misses for the forest for the legal trees.

Wouldn't that describe about 95% (and I'm being kind) of articles about court cases?

You are being way too kind.

Ferguson happened....and is in the past.....but some people cannot let it go and just move on

Does anyone else wonder why this is even considered to be news such that it is covered in the New York Times?

Contrast to the NYT not covering the IRS scandal. Criticism of NYT over IRS

(01-06-2015 06:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Does anyone else wonder why this is even considered to be news such that it is covered in the New York Times?

Contrast to the NYT not covering the IRS scandal. Criticism of NYT over IRS

That scandal involved using the most powerful government agency to harass, intimidate, and silence political speech from the right, in an attempt to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

Why would the NY Times think that was a bad thing?