Mike Ditka comments on Ferguson, St. Louis Rams

[L.T. Fan]

Having a DA from an office that works directly with the department in question prosecute the officer is a clear conflict of interests.

To my knowledge it is not a conflict of interest. It's done all the time. That presumes that the prosecutors cannot make independent judgements about a municipal police department.

 

[Clay_Allison]

To my knowledge it is not a conflict of interest. It's done all the time. That presumes that the prosecutors cannot make indecent judgements about a municipal police department.

We have an adversarial criminal justice system and cops and their district's prosecutors are on the same side of that adversarial divide.

There is a clear motive to support the police department because they need the police department to do their jobs. It would remove the perception of a good old boys system if they used a prosecutor from another district that could be an objective party.

 

[L.T. Fan]

We have an adversarial criminal justice system and cops and their district's prosecutors are on the same side of that adversarial divide.

There is a clear motive to support the police department because they need the police department to do their jobs. It would remove the perception of a good old boys system if they used a prosecutor from another district that could be an objective party.

Well I am really puzzled. If this cooperative system is so obviously bias toward the police agenda why has it been allowed to be the primary system in place at the potential deferment to the public? Surely the judicial side of the justice system would recognize the conflict and move to strike it down.

 

[townsend]

To my knowledge it is not a conflict of interest. It's done all the time. That presumes that the prosecutors cannot make indecent judgements about a municipal police department.

I'd say "being done all the time" is the crux of the entire problem. Just because something happens frequently does not mean that it is ethical. You can see that the DA soft balled the case because he didn't want to prosecute it, they intentionally mislead the jury http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

McCulloch sandbagged the hearing just like he has sandbagged every hearing like this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bob-mccullochs-pathetic-prosecution-of-darren-wilson/2014/11/25/a8459e16-74d5-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html Because "It's done all the time."

Whether or not it is accepted as such, this was a clear cut case of conflict of interest.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I'd say "being done all the time" is the crux of the entire problem. Just because something happens frequently does not mean that it is ethical. You can see that the DA soft balled the case because he didn't want to prosecute it, they intentionally mislead the jury http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

McCulloch sandbagged the hearing just like he has sandbagged every hearing like this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bob-mccullochs-pathetic-prosecution-of-darren-wilson/2014/11/25/a8459e16-74d5-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html Because "It's done all the time."

Whether or not it is accepted as such, this was a clear cut case of conflict of interest.

I read the article and what the writer has done is laid out all the reasons he thinks was done by the prosecutor. While it is nicely constructed I could not find any circumstance where he could say that it was factual. It is a well written opinion of the writer's position of the outcome. I am an open person but I am also a trained Investigative Supervisor and have learned to seperate opinion from fact. It may well be the case that what the writer has written has a certain amount of truth but only when I see the evidence supporting it will I conclude it is true.

 

[Clay_Allison]

You don't have to prove someone has already acted improperly to assert that they should recuse themselves or be exempted from a case. MAYBE a prosecutor would act entirely properly if the suspect was his son, but you wouldn't let them handle the case.

 

[Jwooten15]

There would be absolute outrage if 5 white players came out and did something to show solidarity with the cop.

They wouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL anymore

 

[Cowboysrock55]

To my knowledge it is not a conflict of interest. It's done all the time. That presumes that the prosecutors cannot make independent judgements about a municipal police department.

This isn't necessarily true. Especially in the State of Missouri. It's why I mentioned the ability for a special prosecuting attorney to be assigned from the AG's office (Attorney General). Perfect example of this is recently in Missouri the prosecuting attorney in Moniteau County got himself in legal trouble. He has been charged with 5 felony counts. In order to prevent any conflict of interest (or appearance there of) a special prosecuting attorney has been assigned to the case form the Attorney General's office.

I'm a criminal defense attorney in the State of Missouri so I could probably go on and on for pages on this topic. I actually think the whole Grand Jury process is a load of crap. Most of the time we make use of the preliminary hearing process where an associate level judge determines if there is probable cause to formally charge someone with a felony crime. It's a far more open process that is highly preferred.

In the Michael Brown case I'm not saying the prosecuting attorney tanked the case but I don't think the process was appropriate or correctly executed in this case. I can say for certainty that the prosecuting attorney did not treat that case in the same manner that he would have treated a case of you or myself shooting someone in self defense.

 

[L.T. Fan]

This isn't necessarily true. Especially in the State of Missouri. It's why I mentioned the ability for a special prosecuting attorney to be assigned from the AG's office (Attorney General). Perfect example of this is recently in Missouri the prosecuting attorney in Moniteau County got himself in legal trouble. He has been charged with 5 felony counts. In order to prevent any conflict of interest (or appearance there of) a special prosecuting attorney has been assigned to the case form the Attorney General's office.

I'm a criminal defense attorney in the State of Missouri so I could probably go on and on for pages on this topic. I actually think the whole Grand Jury process is a load of crap. Most of the time we make use of the preliminary hearing process where an associate level judge determines if there is probable cause to formally charge someone with a felony crime. It's a far more open process that is highly preferred.

In the Michael Brown case I'm not saying the prosecuting attorney tanked the case but I don't think the process was appropriate or correctly executed in this case. I can say for certainty that the prosecuting attorney did not treat that case in the same manner that he would have treated a case of you or myself shooting someone in self defense.

Are there any laws or statutes forbidding this practice? If it were a conflict one would think it would be codified or become law forbidding the practice of same.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Are there any laws or statutes forbidding this practice? If it were a conflict one would think it would be codified or become law forbidding the practice of same.

The only thing that covers conflicts of interest would be the Missouri Bar professional code of ethics. It's not a law or statute but the Missouri Bar also decides if you are allowed to keep your license to practice law in the State.

For example I'm not allowed to have sex with my clients. That would be viewed as a conflict of interest.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The only thing that covers conflicts of interest would be the Missouri Bar professional code of ethics. It's not a law or statute but the Missouri Bar also decides if you are allowed to keep your license to practice law in the State.

For example I'm not allowed to have sex with my clients. That would be viewed as a conflict of interest.

But the bar wouldn't govern legal conflicts that are identified in the legal process would they? If the practice we are discussing were an actual legal conflict of interest wouldn't it be part of the law? If it it not defined within the law then isit a conflict?

 

[Jiggyfly]

The only thing that covers conflicts of interest would be the Missouri Bar professional code of ethics. It's not a law or statute but the Missouri Bar also decides if you are allowed to keep your license to practice law in the State.

For example I'm not allowed to have sex with my clients. That would be viewed as a conflict of interest.

Wisconson just passed a law that has included some of civilian oversite in police shooting cases, I don't know the complete details but a outside person leads the investigation and another is part of the commitee.

I think this should be adopted by all police forces.

 

[Jiggyfly]

But the bar wouldn't govern legal conflicts that are identified in the legal process would they? If the practice we are discussing were an actual legal conflict of interest wouldn't it be part of the law? If it it not defined within the law then isit a conflict?

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.
The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests.

It's really not hard to see the conflict of interest in this case but if you need a definition here it is.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But the bar wouldn't govern legal conflicts that are identified in the legal process would they? If the practice we are discussing were an actual legal conflict of interest wouldn't it be part of the law? If it it not defined within the law then isit a conflict?

There is no such thing as a statutory conflict of interest. That doesn't mean conflicts of interest don't exist. I've seen too many attorney's lose their law license due to ignoring conflicts of interest. It's just that the regulating agency of such things is the Missouri Bar.

 

[L.T. Fan]

There is no such thing as a statutory conflict of interest. That doesn't mean conflicts of interest don't exist. I've seen too many attorney's lose their law license due to ignoring conflicts of interest. It's just that the regulating agency of such things is the Missouri Bar.

But aren't those instances regulated by the bar toward the members conduct? Who defines conflict of inteest as a legal matter for the courts? Shouldn't these be looking into the matter at hand if there is a conflict?

 

[L.T. Fan]

It's really not hard to see the conflict of interest in this case but if you need a definition here it is.

I understand what a conflict is. The question at hand is if it exists in the instant case who is responsible for looking into it to make that determination. At this juncture some have opined there is a conflict. If that's the case what is the remedy and who is responsible to enforce it.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But aren't those instances regulated by the bar toward the members conduct? Who defines conflict of inteest as a legal matter for the courts? Shouldn't these be looking into the matter at hand if there is a conflict?

There are also local court rules which dictate procedural stuff like that as well. That is unique to each circuit however. The Missouri Rules of Criminal procedure don't deal with conflicts of interest at all.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I understand what a conflict is. The question at hand is if it exists in the instant case who is responsible for looking into it to make that determination. At this juncture some have opined there is a conflict. If that's the case what is the remedy and who is responsible to enforce it.

C-Rock appears to be saying that MO has no formal safeguards and that such things are left up to the personal judgement of the Attorney General and his office.

 

[L.T. Fan]

There are also local court rules which dictate procedural stuff like that as well. That is unique to each circuit however. The Missouri Rules of Criminal procedure don't deal with conflicts of interest at all.

Well then that being the case there is no conflict until someone determines there is. The "appearance" is therefore an opinion or belief until someone or something determines otherwise. At least that's how I see it. It's an allegation or presumption.

 

[Cotton]

Well then that being the case there is no conflict until someone determines there is. The "appearance" is therefore an opinion or belief until someone or something determines otherwise. At least that's how I see it. It's an allegation or presumption.

Agreed.