Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Media seem to be covering that second game as though it were an exhibition game.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

yes. And he would have had to convince a judge that he had a case worth bringing to trial. And Wilson would have been able to testify.

And, unlike in a grand jury proceeding, his defense lawyer would be present, and able to impeach false testimony.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I'm not sure a defense attorney present could have done a better job than his office did in providing a defense.

Then again, a judge present might have done something other than say "don't worry about it" when it turned out they were citing a defunct law.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Wrong again.

The prosecutor represents the people and his job is not to indict someone when there's no chance for a conviction at trial. (And even you say he couldn't have gotten a conviction at trial.

And, Wilson's attorney's could not advocate for him before a grand jury. He's no allowed in the grand jury room. That's why the prosecutor has to present exculpatory evidence.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Not before the grand jury he doesn't.

The fact that defense attorneys aren't allowed there is *precisely* the point.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Why do you keep saying this? I know you are or have been a prosecutor.

But show me where the law says the subject of a grand jury can not appear before the grand jury. My understanding is that while most do not -- they don't want to reveal their defense prior to trial, nor necessarily tell the subjects side of the story -- they have a right to appear.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The prosecutor and the defendant are opponents.

YF, you don't really believe the prosecuting attorney is there to impartially guide the process, do you? If so, you're confused. That's the judge.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Almost no defendants testify because they're not allowed counsel. But they don't have a right.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Here's one former LA prosecutor who says you have to give the target the opportunity to testify:

Here's a prosecutor who says she has to present the negatove aspects of her case to the grand jury:

She says it's rare that a target testifies, either because the target does not now about the proceedings, or because they choose not to. Neither of those circumstances are in play here. Wilson knew he was a target, and had a right to appear:

More on the fact that the prosecutor has to bring forth evidence that is beneficial to the target:

And finally, why the percentage of cases that go before a grand jury and don't lead to an indictment is low, but why it's not surprising in this case, which is very different than the norm:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/daily-beasts-jonathan-alter-hugh-prosecutor-callers-debate-ferguson-grand-jury-decision/#

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Again, even if you want to excuse away all the other behavior under some kind of twisted version of discretion, the grand jury spent almost the entire investigation with an inaccurate, overly broad explanation of when officers are allowed to use force.

A couple of days before wrapping up, the lawyers from McCulloch's office handed out a new paper outlining use of force without explaining what was different. They alluded to something about the statute not complying with U.S. Supreme Court case law. A grand juror asked specifically if the U.S. Supreme Court rulings outweighed Missouri statutes, and rather than the simple one-word answer of "yes," the response was "We don't want to get into a law class, just don't worry about it."

That's pretty much been the attitude of the authorities in Ferguson all along. "Just don't worry about" the law. We'll handle it, trust us. We know what the right decision is, so just don't worry about how we get there.