Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

This story, and the grand jury's finding, has been pretty widely reported.

I've yet to find a single prosecutor (or former prosecutor) say he'd want to take the case to trial.

Why is that? Are there dozens of them out there that just can't get the attention of the media to share their thoughts? Or, do none exist?

The National Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of African-American lawyers, sounded off on the prosecutor not doing his job.

"When you think about a grand jury process, that process is not a jury trial. It is an audience for — similar to the preliminary hearing before the judge, is an audience for the prosecutor to present a case that says 'we believe is worthy of indictment, here's the evidence that proves that.' And it's a solid airtight case because the evidence is really controlled by the prosecutor. That's not to say that the grand jury can't ask for witnesses or ask questions, but typically the prosecutor controls the process. Typically a defendant doesn't testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor's main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn't be bringing it before the grand jury."

I can see how you would have missed it, though, because it wasn't the black-on-black rhetoric that white folks love so much.

 

[doctorquant]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

LTL, I think you're giving short shrift to the "otherwise he wouldn't be bringing it before the grand jury."

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Because he did bring it before the grand jury.

 

[doctorquant]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Because he did bring it before the grand jury.

Yes, but as even MC has alluded, this prosecutor probably shouldn't have done even that.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Right. He should have just filed charges on his own. But he's in the tank for the cops.

 

[doctorquant]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Right. He should have just filed charges on his own. But he's in the tank for the cops.

No, he doesn't have that option. He HAS to bring it before the grand jury if he's going to file charges.

 

[YankeeFan]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The National Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of African-American lawyers, sounded off on the prosecutor not doing his job.

"When you think about a grand jury process, that process is not a jury trial. It is an audience for — similar to the preliminary hearing before the judge, is an audience for the prosecutor to present a case that says 'we believe is worthy of indictment, here's the evidence that proves that.' And it's a solid airtight case because the evidence is really controlled by the prosecutor. That's not to say that the grand jury can't ask for witnesses or ask questions, but typically the prosecutor controls the process. Typically a defendant doesn't testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor's main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn't be bringing it before the grand jury."

I can see how you would have missed it, though, because it wasn't the black-on-black rhetoric that white folks love so much.

There's no such thing as a defendant in a grand jury investigation. The Bar Association should know that.

And, while the laws of various states may vary, the subject of a grand jury investigation generally as the right to appear in front of the grand jury.

There's certainly no indication in this statement that the Bar thinks it's a good case, that would/could/may have led to a conviction.

As for the idea that the prosecutor "could have gotten an indictment, if he wanted one," why would he have wanted one given the evidence? If the evidence isn't there, he shouldn't want one.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Right. He should have just filed charges on his own. But he's in the tank for the cops.

No, he doesn't have that option. He HAS to bring it before the grand jury if he's going to file charges.

From Dana Milbank (I think it has been elsewhere too):

As has been repeated often in recent weeks, a grand jury will indict a proverbial ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it to. Alternatively, McCulloch could have brought charges through a judicial hearing; he chose not to do that, either.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The National Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of African-American lawyers, sounded off on the prosecutor not doing his job.

"When you think about a grand jury process, that process is not a jury trial. It is an audience for — similar to the preliminary hearing before the judge, is an audience for the prosecutor to present a case that says 'we believe is worthy of indictment, here's the evidence that proves that.' And it's a solid airtight case because the evidence is really controlled by the prosecutor. That's not to say that the grand jury can't ask for witnesses or ask questions, but typically the prosecutor controls the process. Typically a defendant doesn't testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor's main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn't be bringing it before the grand jury."

I can see how you would have missed it, though, because it wasn't the black-on-black rhetoric that white folks love so much.

There's no such thing as a defendant in a grand jury investigation. The Bar Association should know that.

And, while the laws of various states may vary, the subject of a grand jury investigation generally as the right to appear in front of the grand jury.

There's certainly no indication in this statement that the Bar thinks it's a good case, that would/could/may have led to a conviction.

As for the idea that the prosecutor "could have gotten an indictment, if he wanted one," why would he have wanted one given the evidence? If the evidence isn't there, he shouldn't want one.

Yes. That's how prosecutors work. They don't try to get indictments to put pressure on defendants, for instance to add leverage to a plea bargain. And they don't ever take the "prosecution" side of the prosecutor's case.

Not at all. Prosecutors never try to get indictments on cases that may or may not make good trials. They are only the fairest and most impartial arbiters of justice. Always.

 

[heyabbott]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Did the prosecutor break the law? Did he proceed in any ill legal manner? If all he did was what he was allowed to do and you just don't like the result that's not his fault

 

[heyabbott]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The system worked and Some people didn't like the outcome and some people did like the outcome. Unfortunately the people who did not like the outcome are loud and make good news

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Did the prosecutor break the law? Did he proceed in any ill legal manner? If all he did was what he was allowed to do and you just don't like the result that's not his fault

There are about a thousand different lawyers and law professors noting how highly unusual his behavior and the result were.

But that's kind of the point -- he's the last in a line of people of authority who just do what they're allowed to do, and the only way it ever comes out is for the cop.