# Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Discussion Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596 "2014-11-25T15:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![regginbrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@regginbrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regginbrow)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/341 "2014-12-17T03:28:44Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As long as the jury knows she is unreliable and racist, no. The fact that the jury knows she is unreliable and racist and is lying in a pro-Wilson manner would put more pressure toward indictment, actually. No, I mean that it reflects poorly on the prosecution, in that they didn’t even bother with basic fact checking. You don’t agree? It also raises the possibility that any other witness could be baldly lying as well; not as openly as this moron, but openly enough that the prosecutor could have discredited him/her if any effort were put forth. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/342 "2014-12-17T03:41:18Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > No, I mean that it reflects poorly on the prosecution, in that they didn’t even bother with basic fact checking. You don’t agree? It also raises the possibility that any other witness could be baldly lying as well; not as openly as this moron, but openly enough that the prosecutor could have discredited him/her if any effort were put forth. From what I have seen in released documents, the prosecutor did put some effort into questioning the witnesses in order for the jury to decide which witnesses were more reliable and which were less. As for not calling the witness at all - if I recall correctly, the prosecutor promised that the Grand Jury will see _all_ the evidence. All means all. ---
**Author:** ![regginbrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@regginbrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regginbrow)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/343 "2014-12-17T03:57:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > From what I have seen in released documents, the prosecutor did put some effort into questioning the witnesses in order for the jury to decide which witnesses were more reliable and which were less. > > As for not calling the witness at all - if I recall correctly, the prosecutor promised that the Grand Jury will see _all_ the evidence. All means all. There is a difference between the unreliable memories of eyewitnesses and perjury. Lies are not evidence, and these would have been outed as lies with the bare minimum of effort. I’ll ask again: do you think this reflects poorly on the prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/344 "2014-12-17T04:08:53Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > There is a difference between the unreliable memories of eyewitnesses and perjury. Lies are not evidence, and these would have been outed as lies with the bare minimum of effort. > > I’ll ask again: do you think this reflects poorly on the prosecution? Don’t think it does. Prosecutors don’t do the investigation. Investigators do it. But if she perjured herself she should be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![regginbrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@regginbrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regginbrow)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/345 "2014-12-17T04:21:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Don’t think it does. Prosecutors don’t do the investigation. Investigators do it. But if she perjured herself she should be prosecuted. In your mind, prosecutors just take whatever information investigators give them at face value? And they are required to take all this evidence and present it to a grand jury? That’s what you are implying here, because otherwise the prosecutor has the power to either gather additional facts or disregard information that is unverifiable, neither of which was done in this case. At best, this should be enormously embarrassing to the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/346 "2014-12-17T04:22:40Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > In your mind, prosecutors just take whatever information investigators give them at face value? And they are required to take all this evidence and present it to a grand jury? They are not required to do that. But this prosecutor said he’d be doing it. And did. Note that he also presented unreliable witnesses who lied the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/347 "2014-12-17T04:27:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Don’t think it does. Prosecutors don’t do the investigation. Investigators do it. But if she perjured herself she should be prosecuted. Right, because if, as a prosecutor, I know it’s likely my witness is lying, then, well, that’s on her head. I’m just asking questions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/348 "2014-12-17T06:01:47Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > In your mind, prosecutors just take whatever information investigators give them at face value? And they are required to take all this evidence and present it to a grand jury? > [@Terr](#): > > They are not required to do that. But this prosecutor said he’d be doing it. And did. Note that he also presented unreliable witnesses who lied the other way. It would be helpful for an attorney to weigh in here but my understanding of the Grand Jury process is this: It is the prosecutor’s job to get an indictment. Read that sentence just above again. It is literally the job of the prosecutor to obtain an indictment. If they do not feel there is reason to indict then they exercise prosecutorial discretion and simply don’t bring the case and drop charges. Here it seems we have a case where the politics of the matter demanded that the cop face charges. The prosecutor could have dropped all charges but that was politically a no-go so he sought an indictment then did his level best to torpedo it. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/349 "2014-12-17T06:12:53Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Right, because if, as a prosecutor, I know it’s likely my witness is lying, then, well, that’s on her head. I’m just asking questions. The prosecutor had a highly politically charged case. He could have eliminated some witnesses, however in this case he would have been accused of stacking the deck. One way of dealing with that is to present everything to the GJ and let them sort it out. As far as I can tell, he did this in a fair way in that he let the nutjobs on both sides testify. Given the political aspect of this case I am not sure there is a better way to handle it. It would be nice if the case could be looked at rationally but the emotions got so high that whatever the prosecutor did he’d get shit for it. So he punted and gave it to the GJ. If there is a better way to handle this situation I haven’t heard it. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/351 "2014-12-17T06:44:17Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > The prosecutor had a highly politically charged case. He could have eliminated some witnesses, however in this case he would have been accused of stacking the deck. > > One way of dealing with that is to present everything to the GJ and let them sort it out. As far as I can tell, he did this in a fair way in that he let the nutjobs on both sides testify. > > Given the political aspect of this case I am not sure there is a better way to handle it. It is the prosecutors job to obtain an indictment. A grand jury is not a fact finding group. That is the job of a regular jury. The grand jury’s job is to decide if there is reasonable cause to take someone to court. This bar is very, very, very low. It almost never happens that a prosecutor does not get an indictment. It is not regular court. There are no two sides to it…literally. There is the prosecutor’s side only and they are free to present whatever evidence they want. Remember though it is their _job_ to get an indictment. There is a reason they say you can indict a ham sandwich. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/352 "2014-12-17T07:38:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is the prosecutors job to obtain an indictment. Not if he doesn’t think a crime has been committed. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/353 "2014-12-17T13:49:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Don’t think it does. You probably should. The problem I had with this witness (and the other couple pro-Brown witnesses who were also clearly lying) is that once it’s established outside of the courtroom that they’re lying, their testimony becomes worthless. Yes, you can say it’s a judgement call that the prosecutor’s office didn’t want to make, but they damn well should have. After all, I’m sure if I combed America I could find psychics, crazies, and forgers galore who could produce “evidence” in all kinds of cases. I would expect anyone with the qualifications necessary to become a county prosecutor to be able to separate evidence from fucking garbage. The only benefit in presenting fucking garbage to the grand jury is for the prosecutor, in that he could then go on TV and avoid any potential “Why didn’t you call Witness XX?” questions. But there’s no benefit to the grand jury themselves to hear that garbage. None. It does not help their deliberations, it does not help them understand the law better. It wastes their time and distracts them from parts of the case that are actually relevant. In short, should the prosecutor make a grand jury’s job _harder_ in order to make his or her own job _easier_? Of course not, that’s slimy, lazy horseshit. But that’s what happened here. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/354 "2014-12-17T14:18:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is the prosecutors job to obtain an indictment. Not if the prosecution believes such an indictment would be contrary to justice. > [@](#): > > A grand jury is not a fact finding group. That is the job of a regular jury. Not a nitpick: it is **not** the job of a regular jury to be a fact finding group. The job of a regular jury is to decide whether or not the prosecution has proven all the elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@](#): > > The grand jury’s job is to decide if there is reasonable cause to take someone to court. Also not a nitpick: the grand jury’s job is to decide if there is _probable cause_ to believe that a crime was committed, and that a specific person or persons committed that crime. > [@](#): > > There is the prosecutor’s side only and they are free to present whatever evidence they want. Yes - whatever evidence they want. In this case, it became immediately clear to the DA that they had little-to-no chance of getting Wilson convicted. A trial would therefore waste a lot of money and inflict a great deal on the accused to no purpose. If the DA had proceeded in the way a DA usually does and should in cases where there is not enough evidence to expect a conviction, the case would have been dropped without bothering with a grand jury. If that had been the case, there would have been even more riots, because the ignorant and bigoted in Fergusion and out of it wanted blood. So the DA chose to convene a grand jury, present a fairly complete case that included both the prosecution’s side, and the defense side. You are correct that this is unusual - normally it is one-sided. To put it as pejoratively as possible, the DA was trying to weasel out of confronting the consequences of a dismissal. To put it as fairly as possible, the DA was using the grand jury to stall for a while while tempers cooled, and involving the community in discovering that the evidence for a conviction simply wasn’t there, so the black community of Ferguson (as well as outside agitators and race pimps) would be shown that a conviction of Wilson simply could not be achieved. It was asked several times in related threads - what is the purpose of a prolonged and expensive show trial that ends in acquital, vs. a grand jury proceeding in which it is made clear that the chances of a conviction are one with Ninevah and Tyre? Better to present the evidence to a grand jury, and show that a balanced presentation of the evidence cannot even reach the much lower threshhold of “probable cause”, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Again - it is **not** the duty of a DA to try for an indictment at all costs, whenever a person is arrested. If you think about it, you can see why that is better. Justice is the goal, and that is better served by DAs as well as defense attorneys if people use their judgment instead of simply charging ahead and indicting automatically. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/355 "2014-12-17T15:42:27Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Not if he doesn’t think a crime has been committed. > [@Shodan](#): > > Not if the prosecution believes such an indictment would be contrary to justice. Then the prosecutor should exercise prosecutorial discretion and not bring charges. If they bring something to a grand jury it is their duty to try and obtain an indictment. Why would they bother to go to a grand jury if they didn’t feel there was a case for prosecution and then try to undermine their own case? > [@](#): > > Not a nitpick: it is **not** the job of a regular jury to be a fact finding group. The job of a regular jury is to decide whether or not the prosecution has proven all the elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair enough. But then it is not a grand jury’s job to decide guilt or innocence. They are merely there to decide if there is enough of a question to be worthy of a trial. If this thread (and countless articles) is any indication there is most certainly doubt here and that is for a trial court to judge. > [@](#): > > Again - it is **not** the duty of a DA to try for an indictment at all costs, whenever a person is arrested. If you think about it, you can see why that is better. Justice is the goal, and that is better served by DAs as well as defense attorneys if people use their judgment instead of simply charging ahead and indicting automatically. It is their duty otherwise they should not bother to even go to a grand jury. Your notions assume some ideal of a justice system that simply does not exist in the US. I do not think you can point to this case and say, “See!? The justice system working as intended!” > [@](#): > > “If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.” > > SOURCE: [It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) At the federal level: > [@](#): > > From October 2009 to September 2010, US prosecutors pursued 193,000 cases and prosecuted 162,350. Of the more than 30,000 they didn’t prosecute, 11 cases were because a grand jury did not return an indictment. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/) ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/356 "2014-12-17T15:48:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Then the prosecutor should exercise prosecutorial discretion and not bring charges. If they bring something to a grand jury it is their duty to try and obtain an indictment. You’re making stuff up, that is not their duty. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/357 "2014-12-17T15:52:55Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > You’re making stuff up, that is not their duty. Would you feel better if I said, “It is their job”? Because it is their job and, personally, I think doing your job right is a duty but YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/358 "2014-12-17T15:55:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Then the prosecutor should exercise prosecutorial discretion and not bring charges. If they bring something to a grand jury it is their duty to try and obtain an indictment. Cite for the “their duty” part? > [@](#): > > Why would they bother to go to a grand jury if they didn’t feel there was a case for prosecution and then try to undermine their own case? That’s a loaded question. What if they don’t feel there was a case for prosecution and then do not try to undermine their own case? > [@](#): > > But then it is not a grand jury’s job to decide guilt or innocence. They are merely there to decide if there is enough of a question to be worthy of a trial. And they decided that there isn’t enough. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/359 "2014-12-17T15:56:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Would you feel better if I said, “It is their job”? Because it is their job and, personally, I think doing your job right is a duty but YMMV. You think it is prosecutor’s job to obtain indictment in a case he thinks he cannot win? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/360 "2014-12-17T16:03:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You think it is prosecutor’s job to obtain indictment in a case he thinks he cannot win? It is their job to not waste the court’s time and not bring the case in the first place. It’s called “prosecutorial discretion”: (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion. > > SOURCE: [http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/](http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/) ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/361 "2014-12-17T16:03:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is the prosecutors job to obtain an indictment. > > A grand jury is not a fact finding group. That is the job of a regular jury. The grand jury’s job is to decide if there is reasonable cause to take someone to court. This bar is very, very, very low. It almost never happens that a prosecutor does not get an indictment. > > It is not regular court. There are no two sides to it…literally. There is the prosecutor’s side only and they are free to present whatever evidence they want. Remember though it is their _job_ to get an indictment. > > There is a reason they say you can indict a ham sandwich. I understand what GJs are and how they work. I wasn’t talking about the GJ process but the political side. If the prosecutor didn’t call certain witnesses you can be sure that 10 minutes after the GJ dropped it Al Sharpton (or someone else who thrives on stirring up shit) would be on CNN screaming about how witness Xwasn’t called and the prosecutor is a racist. Cue even more riots and people burning shit down. The only way to deal with that is to let the GJ see everything and make a decision. Additionally, had the prosecutor stacked the deck against the officer and took the case to trial, the backlash of a not guilty verdict (which from what I have read seems highly likely) would be, once again, more riots and people burning shit down. Slee [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=19)