How Grand Was That Ferguson Grand Jury? A Couple of Perspectives

[Lucille]

SMH This is pathetic.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/25/how-grand-was-that-ferguson-grand-jury-a

A couple of perspectives on the behavior of the grand jury and particularly of Prosecutor Bob McCulloch.

Excerpts from a tweetstorm from lawyer and TV personality Lisa Bloom:

"It is just not a very well-liked community," Darren Wilson testified at p. 238 about Mike Brown's neighborhood. Meaning despised by police....

"That's not an area where you can take anything really lightly," Darren Wilson testified about Mike Brown's neighborhood....

After the shooting, Darren Wilson said he didn't need to go to the hospital. Speaks to his attorney, then agrees to go. p. 248...

Hospital finds no injuries to Darren Wilson other than slight redness on his face, though he says Mike Brown punched him full force twice....

"I know you are in a pretty stressful situation" the prosecutor says to Darren WIlson, doing the exact opposite of cross-examining him. p237...

Darren Wilson says Mike Brown had a handful of cigarillos and MB punched him with that (right) hand. Concedes no pieces of cigarillo in car....

Takes a grand juror (not prosecutor) to ask Wilson if he thought Brown had a gun. "I wasn't thinking about that at that time." No follow up....

Prosecutor's questioning of Wilson so friendly that at the end HE points out no one asked him how Brown was a threat if he was running away....

Sargeant says Wilson told him he did NOT know of stealing incident. Wilson says he DID know about it. No one points out this inconsistency....

Mr. McCulloch: why did you talk about inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony but not inconsistencies in Darren Wilson's testimony?...

The grand jury testimony documents.

A public defender (so they say) on Reddit thinks it might not have been a great idea to even have Wilson testifying if the prosecutor was doing his normal job, that is, trying to get an indictment:

[Wilson testifying] makes it personal for the grand jury, it makes it more about "do we believe him or not" instead of whether the legal standard is met or not, and it provides massive amounts of irrelevant evidence that is confusing and not relevant to the decisions that they need to make.

Probable cause clearly exists with nothing more than the (1) number of shots fired, (2) the fact that the suspect was unarmed, (3) the dispute between medical examiners, (4) even a single witness that says something that doesn't match exactly with the officer's testimony.

I cannot count the number of times a judge has told me "probable cause is an extremely low standard but your objection is noted for the record." In most cases, all it takes is a single witness that says something that MIGHT be a crime or a single discrepancy in testimony from someone claiming to be innocent. If just a single witness says "his back was turned" - THAT is probable cause for every defendant I have ever represented (which are, of course, the poor and people of color). If there is even a single thought of "did he really NEED to pull his gun? Are we 100% sure?" you have PC.

The prosecutor's decision to put all evidence before the grand jury seems extremely suspect to me. If he wanted to simply present enough to indict (which is his job in that situation) he would have only put on the evidence that raised questions about what happened (thereby showing that it is worth pursuing a full investigation for trial) - and let the actual TRIAL system work to resolve innocence or guilt. That is how the system is DESIGNED to work.

I very much doubt he takes that approach when charging drug suspects, because it creates the exact issues of clouding the legal standards and confusing the grand jury into thinking they are deciding innocence or guilt when they are not.

Bonus Fergusoniana: The Crime Lab Analysis Report regarding all the shots fired during the incident, in which Officer Wilson was the victim, the dead Michael Brown the suspect.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463240-Common-Law-Grand-Juries

 

[DFF]

..yeah, it's everybody's fault but Michael Brown.

 

[presence]

seems legit

 

[RM918]

Really not surprising when you have people on the same 'side', cops and prosecutors, handling their own crimes.

 

[Lucille]

No, it's not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...morning-links-wilson-cleared-ferguson-erupts/

How often do grand juries indict police officers? Almost never.
How often do grand juries indict non-police officers? Almost always.

Darren Wilson Got a Private Trial Run by Friendly Prosecutors
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/26/darren-wilson-got-a-private-trial

As I noted yesterday, the likelihood that Darren Wilson would have been acquitted if he had faced a homicide charge in connection with the death of Michael Brown does not mean he should not have been indicted. As you go through the evidence that was presented to the grand jury, two things are clear: There is plenty of room for reasonable doubt as to whether Wilson broke the law when he shot and killed Brown, and there is considerable evidence that he did—surely enough to supply probable cause, the standard for charging someone with a crime. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch managed to obscure the latter point by staging what amounted to a trial behind closed doors—a trial without a judge or an adversarial process. Assuming the jurors were acting in good faith (and there is no reason to think they weren't), the only explanation for their decision is that they lost sight of the task at hand and considered the evidence as if they were being asked to convict Wilson rather than approve charges that would have led to a real trial.

It is not hard to see how the grand jurors could have made that mistake. McCulloch said he would present all of the evidence collected so far—everything a trial jury would see and hear. The jurors convened on 23 days, hearing testimony that takes up nearly 5,000 pages of transcript, not including the various recorded interviews played for them. Instead of making the case for an indictment, as they ordinarily would do, the prosecutors running the show often seemed to be reinforcing Wilson's defense, as when they suggested that marijuana-induced psychosis might account for the ferocious attack that Wilson says he suffered at Brown's hands and for the heedless charge that Wilson says forced him to shoot Brown over and over again.

McCulloch clearly thought an elaborate grand jury process, coupled with public release of all the evidence presented to the jurors, would help keep the peace and mollify critics who feared that Wilson would get away with murder. But a real trial, even one ending in acquittal, would have been much more effective at achieving those goals. A public airing of the evidence, with ample opportunity for advocates on both sides to present and probe it, is what Brown's family has been demanding all along. McCulloch took extraordinary steps to deny them that trial, thereby reinforcing the impression that the legal system is rigged against young black men and in favor of the white cops who shoot them.

 

[donnay]

Just Us!

 

[PRB]

Darren Wilson's only crime was being a cop, if he was a civilian, he'd just be Zimmerman again, and we'd support him all over the place.

For those who asked, "We" refers to patriotic liberty loving Americans who will always defend gun owners, if you don't, you don't love liberty.

 

[Lucille]

PRB and DFF are obviously having problems with reading comprehension.

 

[euphemia]

The forensics is the verifiable witness in this case. The grand jury heard all of it. They determined the evidence was insufficient to charge Wilson with a crime. As corrupt as they are, if Obama and Holder could not cook up enough evidence to prosecute, then there seriously was not enough evidence.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The forensics is the verifiable witness in this case. The grand jury heard all of it. They determined the evidence was insufficient to charge Wilson with a crime. As corrupt as they are, if Obama and Holder could not cook up enough evidence to prosecute, then there seriously was not enough evidence.

Grand juries are a joke - literally a joke: "A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" ...

Regardless of whether you think Wilson is guilty or not, there was more than enough for an indictment.

The ONLY reason the grand jury did not indict in the Wilson case is because McCulloch (the prosecutor) did not want an indictment.

If Wilson were not a member of the protected class, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he would have been indicted and tried.

(Whether he would have been - or should have been - found guilty at trial is a completely different matter.)

See also: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...son-and-the-Protocols-of-Official-Exoneration

And to repeat what Lucille posted in the OP:

A public defender (so they say) on Reddit thinks it might not have been a great idea to even have Wilson testifying if the prosecutor was doing his normal job, that is, trying to get an indictment:

[Wilson testifying] makes it personal for the grand jury, it makes it more about "do we believe him or not" instead of whether the legal standard is met or not, and it provides massive amounts of irrelevant evidence that is confusing and not relevant to the decisions that they need to make.

Probable cause clearly exists with nothing more than the (1) number of shots fired, (2) the fact that the suspect was unarmed, (3) the dispute between medical examiners, (4) even a single witness that says something that doesn't match exactly with the officer's testimony.

I cannot count the number of times a judge has told me "probable cause is an extremely low standard but your objection is noted for the record." In most cases, all it takes is a single witness that says something that MIGHT be a crime or a single discrepancy in testimony from someone claiming to be innocent. If just a single witness says "his back was turned" - THAT is probable cause for every defendant I have ever represented (which are, of course, the poor and people of color). If there is even a single thought of "did he really NEED to pull his gun? Are we 100% sure?" you have PC.

The prosecutor's decision to put all evidence before the grand jury seems extremely suspect to me. If he wanted to simply present enough to indict (which is his job in that situation) he would have only put on the evidence that raised questions about what happened (thereby showing that it is worth pursuing a full investigation for trial) - and let the actual TRIAL system work to resolve innocence or guilt. That is how the system is DESIGNED to work.

I very much doubt he takes that approach when charging drug suspects, because it creates the exact issues of clouding the legal standards and confusing the grand jury into thinking they are deciding innocence or guilt when they are not.

 

[PRB]

Grand juries are a joke - literally a joke: "A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" ...

Regardless of whether you think Wilson is guilty or not, there was more than enough for an indictment.

So which one is it? they can indict a ham sandwich or not? Or do we use that as an argument that Wilson is too innocent that even a ham sandwich indicting grand jury couldn't find it?

 

[Occam's Banana]

So which one is it? they can indict a ham sandwich or not? Or do we use that as an argument that Wilson is too innocent that even a ham sandwich indicting grand jury couldn't find it?

..

The ONLY reason the grand jury did not indict in the Wilson case is because McCulloch (the prosecutor) did not want an indictment.

 

[PRB]

..

so he basically supressed evidence?

 

[Occam's Banana]

so he basically supressed evidence?

No. He didn't need to - because he did not want an indictment.

When prosecutors actually do want to secure an indictment from a grand jury (which is almost always the case), they routinely and deliberately "suppress" (i.e., exclude or minimize) any and all exculpatory evidence and testimony - anything that might exonerate the defendant and result in a verdict of "no true bill."

Had that been done in this case, Wilson would have been indicted. But that is not what happened - because the prosecutors did not actually want an indictment. Instead, McCulloch and his prosecutors went out of their way to include as much exculpatory evidence and testimony as they could (including prepared testimony from and leading questions to Darren Wilson himself). This is why they did not need to "suppress" anything in order to get the "no true bill" verdict that they wanted.

The purpose of convening a grand jury is ostensibly to secure an indictment against some defendant (Darren Wilson in this case). It is not supposed to be the job of prosecutors to talk grand juries out of indicting defendants. But that is exactly what they did in this case - the prosecutors played the role of ad hoc defense attorneys and the Wilson grand jury was just public-relations theater.

Almost without exception, when prosecutors want indictments, they get indictments - and on those rare occasions when they don't (but pretend to seek one anyway for the sake of public appearances), they don't.

 

[jmdrake]

Darren Wilson's only crime was being a cop, if he was a civilian, he'd just be Zimmerman again, and we'd support him all over the place.

For those who asked, "We" refers to patriotic liberty loving Americans who will always defend gun owners, if you don't, you don't love liberty.

Ummm.....lots of patriotic Americans who always defend gun owners weren't happy with Zimmerman and talked about that here. And some who were defending Zimmerman didn't defend the black woman gun owner who was convicted of firing a "warning shot." Just because you defend gun ownership in general doesn't mean that you have to support every action by every gun owner. Nor does it mean you have bury your head in the sand and ignore looking at facts that don't line up with the gun owner's side of the story.

 

[jmdrake]

No. He didn't need to - because he did not want an indictment.

When prosecutors actually do want to secure an indictment from a grand jury (which is almost always the case), they routinely and deliberately "suppress" (i.e., exclude or minimize) any and all exculpatory evidence and testimony - anything that might exonerate the defendant and result in a verdict of "no true bill."

Had that been done in this case, Wilson would have been indicted. But that is not what happened - because the prosecutors did not actually want an indictment. Instead, McCulloch and his prosecutors went out of their way to include as much exculpatory evidence and testimony as they could (including prepared testimony from and leading questions to Darren Wilson himself). This is why they did not need to "suppress" anything in order to get the "no true bill" verdict that they wanted.

The purpose of convening a grand jury is ostensibly to secure an indictment against some defendant (Darren Wilson in this case). It is not supposed to be the job of prosecutors to talk grand juries out of indicting defendants. But that is exactly what they did in this case - the prosecutors played the role of ad hoc defense attorneys and the Wilson grand jury was just public-relations theater.

Almost without exception, when prosecutors want indictments, they get indictments - and on those rare occasions when they don't (but pretend to seek one anyway for the sake of public appearances), they don't.

^This. There is an old saying. A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.....but only if he wants to. The two white witnesses who came forward and said Brown had his hands up plus the video of them expressing that right after the shooting should have been enough for an indictment. A conviction? Maybe not. But most certainly an indictment.

 

[navy-vet]

Presumption of innocence, preponderance of evidence, rule of law, are all issues that mean nothing, to so many, when there is a racial element involved. How sad and profoundly pathetic is that....

 

[PRB]

No. He didn't need to - because he did not want an indictment.

When prosecutors actually do want to secure an indictment from a grand jury (which is almost always the case), they routinely and deliberately "suppress" (i.e., exclude or minimize) any and all exculpatory evidence and testimony - anything that might exonerate the defendant and result in a verdict of "no true bill."

Had that been done in this case, Wilson would have been indicted. But that is not what happened - because the prosecutors did not actually want an indictment. Instead, McCulloch and his prosecutors went out of their way to include as much exculpatory evidence and testimony as they could (including prepared testimony from and leading questions to Darren Wilson himself). This is why they did not need to "suppress" anything in order to get the "no true bill" verdict that they wanted.

The purpose of convening a grand jury is ostensibly to secure an indictment against some defendant (Darren Wilson in this case). It is not supposed to be the job of prosecutors to talk grand juries out of indicting defendants. But that is exactly what they did in this case - the prosecutors played the role of ad hoc defense attorneys and the Wilson grand jury was just public-relations theater.

Almost without exception, when prosecutors want indictments, they get indictments - and on those rare occasions when they don't (but pretend to seek one anyway for the sake of public appearances), they don't.

Legal question : when we're on a trial, do prosecutors always want a guilty verdict, otherwise not bother to file a case?

If so, is indictment different? As in, did somebody ask the prosecutor to ask the grand jury to indict? or could he have refused to indict even before going to the grand jury?

 

[jmdrake]

Legal question : when we're on a trial, do prosecutors always want a guilty verdict, otherwise not bother to file a case?

If so, is indictment different? As in, did somebody ask the prosecutor to ask the grand jury to indict? or could he have refused to indict even before going to the grand jury?

Well the prosecutor's boss is the district attorney. The district attorney can fire a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute. If the district attorney refuses to prosecute he can lose the next election. Some states allow citizens to bypass prosecutors who won't prosecute and DA's who back them up by letting citizens go directly to the grand jury. Hope that helps.

 

[maybemaybenot]

Guys, it is NOT the job of a prosecutor to get an indictment. That's a fascistic, disgusting view of the law that promotes putting innocent ppl in prison. (I know no one here believes in this, but that's what the articles are saying when they say "the prosecutor is supposed to get an indictment.") The prosecutor is the one lawyer/advocate who isn't going for a particular result, his goal is JUSTICE. If a prosecutor thinks that a suspect didn't commit a crime. OR that he couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should not pursue an indictment. Its illegal AND unethical to pursue an indictment when you don't even believe in what you're saying. Its fine for a defense attorney because he represents his clients' interests; but the prosecutor's client, the state of Missouri, does not have an interest in convicting innocent ppl.

You guys do rightfully bring up the disparity in indictments between cops and non-cops. The solution? Tell prosecutors to stop being gung-ho about indictments in general. Don't throw Darren Wilson under the bus because other cops are assholes, even if Wilson is one of those assholes. The prosecutor did not think Wilson did it, therefore he did not treat the grand jury as a bunch of gullible stooges, he gave them all the information. This was 100% ethical. Blame the prosecutor here when he DOESN'T do that when dealing with a non-cop, when that inevitably happens.