Yesterday, I commented on the recent interview with Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor who handled the Grand Jury proceeding against Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, in which he seems to admit to having used perjured testimony. Today, the New York Times and the ABA Journal picked up the story (here and here). Both mentioned the fact that McCulloch admitted to allowing a certain witness to testify even though he "was sure" she was not telling the truth.
Again, if the prosecutor was "sure" the witness was not telling the truth, then why is allowing her to testify not a violation of the duty not to present false evidence? Is saying that he was sure she was lying the same as saying he "knew" she was lying? Or, is saying that he was sure simply saying that he strongly suspected that the witness was lying, but did not actually know it?
If it is the former, he admitted to violating the rules. If it is the latter, he did not.
Post a Comment