“district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich”. New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler; NY Daily News, 1/31/1985
Or, it appears, they can get them to return a “No Bill of Indictment” if they so choose. Especially, if they knowingly allow false testimony to be given. That’s getting mighty close to “Subornation of Perjury“!
“Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S. Code § 1622 – Subornation of perjury
Which brings us to today’s subject: St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, Bob McCulloch. To refresh your memory, Bob was the prosecutor handling the grand jury in the Ferguson shooting.
In an interview on KTRS Radio, the Prosecuting Attorney admitted that he determined before the trial, that he would let witnesses testify even if “their statements were not accurate”
“Clearly some [witnesses] were not telling the truth…..if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.”
Earth to Bobby: You could easily explain that you didn’t put them on because you knew they were LYING!!!
One particular witness, heretofore known as “Witness 40″, was brought up in the interview.
“The lady clearly wasn’t present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper,”
The “lady” in question is a bi-polar, ex-con with a history of making racial remarks and a fondness for insinuating herself into high-profile crimes. She even flunked a FBI interview two weeks before she testified. (Can you say “red flags”?)
She claimed that Brown struck Wilson and then charged “like a football player, head down”.
Turns out, she was nowhere near the site of the shooting.
When asked in the interview, if he was going to press perjury charges against any of the witnesses, he responded that he wouldn’t.
In order to prove subornation of perjury, there are five hurdles:
- Proof that perjury has been committed. (There is, by his own words.)
- The statements made were material. (As a supposed witness, they were. Her testimony was used by Fox News and other Wilson supporters as justification for the shooting.)
- The perjurer knew their statements were false. (She did.)
- The defendant knew the perjurer’s statements were false. (By his own words, he did.)
- The defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. (Not proven, one way or another, yet.)
Seems to me that four out of five would indicate a need for an impartial prosecutor to at least look in on this.
If there was no subornation, fantastic! That just means that Mr McCulloch has a strange take on his prosecutorial duties and may be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. On the other hand, if there is, this whole mess needs to be cleaned up!
Stay tuned! (But, don’t hold your breath.)