CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

"What would federal prosecutors have to prove in the Michael Brown shooting?"

Paul Cassell has this post at The Volokh Conspiracy. In part:

Some commentators have assumed that the officer could be charged federally if he was negligent or reckless in assessing the need to use deadly force.  For a federal civil rights prosecution, that is untrue.  A federal civil rights prosecution in the Brown shooting will only be successful if the defendant acted with specific intent to deprive Brown of his rights.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2014/08/what-would-federal-prosecutors-have-to-prove-in-the-michael-brown-shooting.html

| Permalink

Comments

DID YOU SEE THE AUTOPSY PHOTO...BULLETS WERE FIRED CLOSED RANGED. FOUR IN THE RIGHT ARM...ONE IN THE TOP LEFT SIDE OF THE NECK...ONE THE THE RIGHT EYE AND ONE AIMED DIRECTLY DOWN INTO THE TOP OF THE HEAD. wOULDNT YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS RECKLESS MURDER, AND VIOLATION OF AN UNARMED 17 YEAR0LD COLLGE BOUND HUMAN BEING

Posted by: GIGI | Aug 22, 2014 10:41:47 AM

Always a rare and fascinating event when the topic is what do the feds have to do to actually prove a case -- which can be difficult -- as opposed to coercing a confession -- which apparently is typically a snap. What's probably saving the warrior cop from the feds' routine coercion drill (confess or face charge-stacking and subsequently 30 or so years in prison) is the high visibility of the Ferguson case...lots of well-informed people are watching. The coercion drill works better in the shadows. Of course the shooter cop also seems likely to receive a more vigorous, capable and affordable defense than can be expected by most ordinary citizens set upon by the feds.

Posted by: John K | Aug 24, 2014 8:59:46 AM

Post a comment