Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Yes.

 

And he would have been crucified for not putting witness 41 on the stand.

Plus, we wouldn't be able to point out what an ass Hannity is when he continues to reference witness 40's account.

 

The Hannity part, solid. (Although he wouldn't care. He'll just keep using it.)

He wouldn't have been crucified for saying he refused to put on an obviously unstable person who didn't witness the event.

The guy just did everything he could to wash his hands of any responsibility.

 

You must have missed the rioting and looting that resulted from accounts like the one provided by witness 41.

The community clearly believed accounts like this.

He had to let witness 41 testify, if only to have the opportunity to impeach his story. Without that, the community would have insisted it was a whitewash. (Pun halfway intended.)

 

That Chris Hayes segment you posted is nothing but seven minutes of butthurt because meaniepants Sean Hannity said something he didn't like. It has no bearing on anything else. It's almost as embarrassing as Hannity himself.

 

If you're a prosecutor trying to get an indictment, is presenting conflicting testimony that your investigators have already discredited the best way to achieve that goal?

Don't forget, YF, the prosecutor is not obliged to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. That's what defense attorneys are for. And a prosecutor can call or not call any witness they want unless the Grand Jury compels a particular witness to testify.

So, when it comes to the Grand Jury, there was literally no reason to ever present Witness 40's testimony, unless her appearance was compelled by the GJ. The Grand Jury process is extremely one-sided in most cases, and the target of a GJ investigation has no right to appear to testify in their own defense. Yet, in this case, the prosecutor called witnesses supporting both sides, even those already discredited by investigators, and the prosecutor allowed the target of the investigation to take the stand in his own defense.

So, no, this certainly was not a regular old case, and the prosecutor certainly didn't treat it as such.

 

Chris Hayes is even a bigger clown than Hannity. The fact that he has a prime time gig at PMSNBC speaks volumes about the
leadership of that network.

 

What if you're trying to be fair, and are only looking to indict if the evidence warrants an indictment -- you know, like you're supposed to?

If not for the public reaction, and media scrutiny, the prosecutor could have looked at all the evidence, all the witness statements, and decided there wasn't a case worthy of bringing before a judge or a grand jury.

But, that wasn't an option, so he let the grand jury see all the evidence he had.

I'm still trying to figure out why that's a bad thing. he probably didn't think it was a good case, and the grand jury's decision validates that.

 

I'm also still looking for one prosecutor who thinks they could have gotten a conviction of Wilson at trial with the evidence and witnesses available.

Have we found even one?

 

That is not at all what a prosecutor is supposed to do.

 

I think it shows what others have said on this thread - that McCulloch wanted to wipe his hands of all responsibility in this case. If he didn't feel like he had a good case, he shouldn't have even taken it to a GJ.

When the prosecutor takes a case to the Grand Jury, it is supposed to be with the goal of getting an indictment. It's not to say, "Hell, I don't know if there's a case here, you tell me what to do."

 

Let's just stipulate that the prosecutor did everything right (I don't agree, but whatevs).

The real issue here is the botched "investigation" and handling of evidence by the police in the shooting's aftermath, which Wilson himself testified to.

That alone was worth taking the case to trial.