“They were guilty of leading this in every way – the way they proceeded, including the warrant, was fraud,” a man known as Juror No. 2 told CBS The Morning in an excerpt broadcast Tuesday.
Interviews show that for the first time in public there is a direct hearing from anonymous grand jurors, who had previously commented through their attorneys, that the panel was not given a chance to consider cow-killing charges in a case against police officers who issued knock-warrants. Taylor’s home during a March drug raid.
Another jury told CBS’s Gail King that the police’s conduct and actions were “negligent.”
“They couldn’t even give a risk assessment and it felt like they didn’t do a single one,” the juror told No. 1 King. “So leading to this was their lack of organization. I mean they were negligent in the operation.”
The CBSA said it blurred the faces of the anonymous grand jurors for their safety.
Two anonymous grand jurors make statements about the proceedings
The first anonymous grand jury wrote in a statement issued by attorney Kevin Glogor that “the grand jury could not explain to them the crimes of cow slaughter. “” The grand jury never heard of these laws. Never explained self-defense or justification. “
Another eminent jury echoed that statement last Thursday. Another panel member said the jury was only allowed to consider three volatile risks against one officer.
“Nothing else has been allowed to be considered,” the junior juror said, adding that he “wholeheartedly” agreed with the first juror’s statement and “continued to help move the record straight.” ”
The first grand jury said “questions were asked about the additional charge” and that members were told that “there is nothing to be found because the plaintiffs do not think they can stick to them.”
“The grand jury did not agree that certain actions were justified or could not decide whether there should be an indictment in Barrow’s Taylor case,” the first jury said. “The grand judge was not given the opportunity to deliberately consider those allegations and was only deliberated on what was presented to him. I cannot speak for other judges, but I can help tell the truth.”
Cameron says he asked the panel to lay charges on allegations that could be proven
Cameron said in a statement posted on Twitter last week that he had asked the grand jury for an indictment that could be proved in court.
“Under the law, allegations made in the absence of sufficient evidence do not apply to anyone and are not fundamentally justified,” he wrote.
He also wrote that “cause, justification and (other legal issues) are always at the forefront of his office’s investigation.”
The attorney general has admitted that this is the only charge his lawyers have recommended to the grand jury. Cameron said the prosecution has presented all the evidence, however, the facts show that force was not used by the two officers as they were fired.
Taylor’s family lawyer, Sam Aguirre, said in a statement last week: “Daniel Cameron is ashamed of himself. He made the decision based on a political agenda.”
The state argued that allowing the jurors to speak could compromise the trial
Cameron’s appeal fee requested that any court order allowing the jury to speak in public be withheld until a potential state appeal.
The state argues that allowing the grand jury to speak could compromise the right to a fair hearing for former officer Brett Hankinson.
But O’Connell said Hankinson did not join the argument or raise the issue himself, so he ruled that he could not find that the concern was “established in reality.”
Hankison was charged with endangering three types of criminal vows, but none of the officers involved in the raid directly charged Taylor with death. Hanks has pleaded not guilty to those charges. No other officers were charged.
Cameron has argued that the officers who shot Taylor were justified in doing so because Taylor’s boyfriend had previously shot him, injuring one officer.
Cameron led the police investigation into the murder and presented evidence in the case to a Jefferson County grand jury the following day.
Cameron said the recording did not include juror discussions or the plaintiff’s recommendations and statements.
.
