Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

The investigation is definitely something that has gotten lost in both this thread and the national conversation. But I can't stipulate that McCulloch carried out his duty as he should have. He either should have taken responsibility and not pursued an indictment, or done his best to get an indictment once he put the case before a Grand Jury. He did neither.

 

Also lost in national conversation is the fact that DOJ / FBI were involved in conducting investigation and witness interviews on a shared basis. It was
pooled evidence provided to The Grand Jury.

 

Of course it is -- especially if in his determination he feels that the case doesn't warrant charges, but, due to community pressure, feels compelled to bring the evidence to a grand jury.

He showed the grand jury exactly what he had. He gave them the very same evidence he would have used to make a determination. But, now, instead of having one person's opinion, we have the opinion of 23 community members, who took the time to go through all the available evidence. They determined the case did not warrant charges.

It would be easy to accuse the prosecutor of not filling charges in spite of the evidence. People are still doing it.

Is there a credible critique of the grand jury decision? This was 23 people. The standard for an indictment is relatively low, and does not require unanimity. And, yet, we got no indictment.

And, not one prosecutor has said this is a case he/she thinks he/she could have won in front of a jury at trial. Not one.

So, how is this a bad decision?

 

Wait, what?

Botched evidence is a reason why you take a case to trial? How so?

Botched evidence is a reason why cases get dropped/tossed all the time.

How do you win a case based on botched evidence?

What other case has ever been brought to trial because of botched evidence?

The evidence in the Jameis winston case was botched. That's why it's not going to trial, not why it should.

 

A prosecutor is not supposed to pursue an indictment if he does not feel the evidence warrants charges. So McCulloch's decision to take the case to the Grand Jury means A) he believed there was enough evidence to charge officer Wilson with a crime or B) he wanted to absolve himself of the responsibility of deciding not to charge Wilson, and instead put it on the Grand Jury.

By presenting exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury, he abdicated his role as a prosecutor and took on the role of defense attorney, ensuring the Grand Jury would find in Wilson's favor.

That is something neither McCulloch, nor any other prosecutor, would do for a regular citizen (particularly one of African-American descent) and that's why it is a bad decision. It's also why you have civil unrest among a population that feels marginalized by a systemic lack of fairness.

 

This just isn't true.

A grand jury is an investigatory body. They investigated the case, which necessitates looking at exculpatory evidence, and decided not to bring charges.

 

You're just wrong about a criminal grand jury's function, YF. Completely wrong.

They do not sift through all available evidence. Not in any case except one involving a cop shooting -- and this prosecutor is 5 for 5 in not securing indictments in those cases.

 

The testimony of Wilson and others detailing the post-shooting investigation is more than enough evidence to suggest more investigation is necessary, and you could argue is evidence of probable cause of a police coverup.

 

A grand jury is an investigative body with subpoena power, and the ability to put witnesses under oath. This isn't in question.

 

Yes. And it was investigated -- by the Grand Jury. That's their job.

Criminal trials are not where you conduct an investigation.

This case didn't clear the first hurdle.

 

You keep saying this, but with all the talk of the function of a grand jury, one thing we know is NOT one is to determine whether a conviction can be obtained.

 

The prosecutor has sole discretion over what evidence is presented and the target of a Grand Jury has no right to appear in his own defense. This also is not in question.

If the target is compelled via subpoena to testify, they are always - ALWAYS - advised by their own counsel to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, unless they are granted immunity, so there will be no chance they say anything to incriminate themselves. Wilson appeared at the behest of the prosecution, yet he did not invoke the Fifth Amendment even though he was not granted immunity. Why do you think that is?