# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/382 "2014-12-17T17:59:02Z")
I’m thinking that in the near future, the good citizens of the state will be given the opportunity to advance the prosecutor onto a more significant office. Perhaps not as a Democrat… ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/383 "2014-12-17T18:00:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What your side keeps failing to see is the appearance of favoritism and justice not being served is very strong here. > > What should have happened, assuming the evidence was so compelling that the officer is innocent of any crime, is the prosecutors drops all charges. It ends then and there. Really. And that, you think, would not, in your eyes, have created “the appearance of favoritism and justice not being served”? Truthfully, now. > [@](#): > > But, according to you, this was not politically possible. Given that then a trial was in order. I disagree. Conducting a trial when you think there is no way you can win is a good example of wrongful persecution and prosecutorial misconduct. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/384 "2014-12-17T18:03:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If the officer went to trial and was found innocent (which you assure me no jury could ever decide otherwise given the facts) then there’d still be people who’d think he got away with murder but they’d have a lot less ground to stand on. Really. Can you tell me how many people in the Zimmerman case were convinced by the trial verdict of Zimmerman’s being not guilty? (Note: I am asking about the trial verdict, not the evidence. The evidence, both in Zimmerman’s case and in Wilson’s, is out in public). ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/385 "2014-12-17T18:05:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > From reading the paper, apparently presented in front of the grand jury, and neither an indictment nor “no true bill” returned. Thanks. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/386 "2014-12-17T18:16:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What your side keeps failing to see is the appearance of favoritism and justice not being served is very strong here. > > What should have happened, assuming the evidence was so compelling that the officer is innocent of any crime, is the prosecutors drops all charges. Bringing him before a grand jury when the evidence does not warrant it is hardly an instance of favoritism. > [@](#): > > What do people see? They see a prosecutor throwing a trial intentionally. They see a cop who they believe is guilty not made to go to court where guilt or innocence is determined. If they don’t believe Wilson is innocent based on the fact that a balanced presentation of the evidence failed to return a true bill, they won’t believe he is innocent after a Not Guilty verdict either. > [@](#): > > You can sputter all you want that he really was innocent and this all worked like it should but then his guilt or innocence was never determined in a court of law. For the umpteenth time, his guilt couldn’t be established and his innocence didn’t need to be. In a trial, he is presumed innocent. In a grand jury, all you need is probable cause. They couldn’t even reach probable cause, so it is dollars to donuts they couldn’t reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” and so Wilson would have walked anyway. > [@](#): > > If the officer went to trial and was found innocent (which you assure me no jury could ever decide otherwise given the facts) then there’d still be people who’d think he got away with murder but they’d have a lot less ground to stand on. No, they wouldn’t have any less ground to stand on. By your definition, the grand jury proceedings were much more like a trial than usual. The DA allowed exculpatory evidence. A regular trial would be like that, except much more so. The prosecution would not be presenting any more evidence, but the defense would, and the defense would be entitled to a much more stringent level of proof. If a relatively even-handed presentation of the evidence can’t even reach the level of “probable cause”, then a presentation slanted (as is proper) way further in favor of the accused isn’t going to do any different. It would just take more and cost more, and achieve nothing more. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tbird)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/387 "2014-12-17T18:40:53Z")
[quote=“steronz, post:353, topic:705596”] > [@](#): > > 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 . From what I’ve read, Johnson been shown to be a liar (about smoking pot that day ect.). Should the prosecutor have not included his testimony? Had his testimony not been included, I’m sure the shit would have hit the fan. With a case this politically charged and under such an intense microscope, I think he had no choice but to make sure every witness had been heard and let the jurists decide. Speaking of scrutiny, given the fact that the DA had to know that the white house, Eric Holder, and the feds were watching intently, he’d be reluctant to show any kind of impropriety and know that his job would be on the line. As of yet, the feds haven’t been able to make a case out of this either. I’m sure if anyone thinks there is a viable case, donors to the Brown family and pro- bono lawyers will try to sue Wilson civilly, (ala Zimmerman, O.J. ect.) but I haven’t heard of anyone who thought it was a case. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/388 "2014-12-17T18:50:30Z")
> [@tbird](#): > > From what I’ve read, Johnson been shown to be a liar (about smoking pot that day ect.). Should the prosecutor have not included his testimony? Had his testimony not been included, I’m sure the shit would have hit the fan. With a case this politically charged and under such an intense microscope, I think he had no choice but to make sure every witness had been heard and let the jurists decide. Johnson might have bent the truth a handful of times in an otherwise lengthy and mostly accurate (based on corroborating testimony and physical evidence) account of events. Comparing his testimony to the people who obviously _weren’t there at all_ and fabricated a story out of whole cloth is ridiculous. I think the prosecutors, being normal human adults capable of graduating from law school, should have been able to tell the difference. So what other justification is there for putting obvious bullshit on the witness stand? Disdain for their fellow humans? ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/389 "2014-12-17T19:01:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Really. And that, you think, would not, in your eyes, have created “the appearance of favoritism and justice not being served”? Truthfully, now. > I disagree. Conducting a trial when you think there is no way you can win is a good example of wrongful persecution and prosecutorial misconduct. You are separating those two things when I think they need to be considered hand-in-hand. I agree the political climate made it that the prosecutor couldn’t just drop the case. Sucks but there it is. Now that they have to do _something_ what to do? Rig a grand jury trial seems to be your answer. You keep dodging the fact that it looks shady as hell when the prosecutor conducts a grand jury in a way they’ve not done before in order to avoid an indictment that would have been trivially easy to get. In essence what people see is he dropped the case (which you just noted would create the appearance of favoritism) but used the grand jury to cover his ass. Looks doubly bad. As for misconduct I seriously doubt they’d get charged for that. Wouldn’t the grand jury give the prosecutor cover on that count? ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/390 "2014-12-17T19:07:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I agree the political climate made it that the prosecutor couldn’t just drop the case. Sucks but there it is. Now that they have to do _something_ what to do? Rig a grand jury trial seems to be your answer. Again - the DAs did not rig the grand jury. They used the grand jury to make clear that they could not get a conviction, and that it was a waste of time and money to try. Again - what is the advantage of trying for an indictment (which is not nearly as cut-and-dried a conclusion as you think) and staging a trial where you can’t get a conviction? People who aren’t convinced by a grand jury aren’t going to be convinced by a Not Guilty either. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/391 "2014-12-17T19:07:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I agree the political climate made it that the prosecutor couldn’t just drop the case. Sucks but there it is. Now that they have to do _something_ what to do? Rig a grand jury trial seems to be your answer. No. It was not a trial and it was not rigged. > [@](#): > > You keep dodging the fact that it looks shady as hell when the prosecutor conducts a grand jury in a way they’ve not done before in order to avoid an indictment that would have been trivially easy to get. It doesn’t look shady to me. It looks fair - all evidence presented, and the jury asked if there is probable cause to indict. > [@](#): > > As for misconduct I seriously doubt they’d get charged for that. Wouldn’t the grand jury give the prosecutor cover on that count? It is prosecutorial misconduct whether he is charged for it or not. It is unethical to do that. Is that what you’re advocating? ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/392 "2014-12-17T19:42:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again - the DAs did not rig the grand jury. They used the grand jury to make clear that they could not get a conviction, and that it was a waste of time and money to try. How often is that done? > [@](#): > > Again - what is the advantage of trying for an indictment (which is not nearly as cut-and-dried a conclusion as you think) and staging a trial where you can’t get a conviction? People who aren’t convinced by a grand jury aren’t going to be convinced by a Not Guilty either. A trial determines guilt or innocence. It is not a one person show as it is with the grand jury. Sure there will always be some who refuse to accept the decision. They might even be right (trial courts are not perfect) but at least some can say the officer had his day in court. Something we cannot do now. And yeah, it is cut-and-dried when only 11cases out of 193,000 are turned back because a grand jury would not indict. > [@Terr](#): > > No. It was not a trial and it was not rigged. > It doesn’t look shady to me. It looks fair - all evidence presented, and the jury asked if there is probable cause to indict. How many prosecutors do it this way again? ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/393 "2014-12-17T19:52:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How many prosecutors do it this way again? I already answered that question, from you, in this very thread. Many. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/394 "2014-12-17T19:54:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I already answered that question, from you, in this very thread. Many. Cite? ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/395 "2014-12-17T19:57:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Cite? I answered you, with a cite, upthread. You know, when you said that you’ll wait… Apparently you didn’t even bother to read the reply. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/396 "2014-12-17T20:14:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How often is that done? Who cares how often it is done? It is appropriate to do so in circumstances where a simple refusal to charge could lead to riots. > [@](#): > > A trial determines guilt or innocence. No it doesn’t. I have already explained this. > [@](#): > > It is not a one person show as it is with the grand jury. Sure there will always be some who refuse to accept the decision. They might even be right (trial courts are not perfect) but at least some can say the officer had his day in court. Something we cannot do now. What we can truthfully say is that even a grand jury, with its lower standard, could not find probable cause, and that therefore it is almost impossible to believe that a criminal trial could find “beyond a reasonable doubt”. > [@](#): > > And yeah, it is cut-and-dried when only 11cases out of 193,000 are turned back because a grand jury would not indict. You are comparing apples and pomegranates. Most of the time, a DA does not convene a grand jury when, as now, he or she does not believe he has enough evidence to prevail at trial. Because (as has been pointed out six or seven times) that is a waste of resources. In this rather unusual set of circumstances, the DAs went to the grand jury to forestall riots, and so the hoi polloi of Ferguson would not blame them when Wilson walked. The officer did have his day in court. And even under the laxer standards of proof of a grand jury, no probable cause was found to believe that he had committed a crime. There is no advantage in seeking indictment in a case where you cannot get a conviction (except to try to make the case clear to the populace). Nothing is going to be clearer, and the end of justice are less served. Because then you waste lots of time and money and resources showing what you knew all along - that you had no case for conviction. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/397 "2014-12-17T20:17:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > A trial determines guilt or innocence. No, it doesn’t. Innocence is presumed. There should not be a trial unless there’s a good chance that they’re going to be found guilty, and (legally) there can’t be one if there’s not probable cause. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/398 "2014-12-17T20:46:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I answered you, with a cite, upthread. You know, when you said that you’ll wait… > > Apparently you didn’t even bother to read the reply. Ah, right… That only tells us that cops tend to get acquitted which could well be the prosecutors stacking the deck when they have police up for indictment. Weird how it is so skewed dontcha think? All that really amounts to is evidence the system is rigged. If you are a cop there is little accountability to be found. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/399 "2014-12-17T20:53:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You are comparing apples and pomegranates. Most of the time, a DA does not convene a grand jury when, as now, he or she does not believe he has enough evidence to prevail at trial. Because (as has been pointed out six or seven times) that is a waste of resources. Wow…so you are suggesting they are SO good at predicting the outcome of cases that they only send cases to a grand jury that will get an indictment literally 99.9943% of the time? That is truly remarkable. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/400 "2014-12-17T20:55:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ah, right… > > That only tells us that cops tend to get acquitted which could well be the prosecutors stacking the deck when they have police up for indictment. Weird how it is so skewed dontcha think? All that really amounts to is evidence the system is rigged. If you are a cop there is little accountability to be found. First it blows to pieces your argument that this was something unusual. Second - because of public pressure (again, showing that this was not something unusual) cop cases tend to be brought to Grand Jury even if it is not warranted by the circumstances/evidence. In Texas, AFAIU, ALL cop-shooting cases are brought to Grand Jury. So you’re wrong - again. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/401 "2014-12-17T20:57:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Wow…so you are suggesting they are SO good at predicting the outcome of cases that they only send cases to a grand jury that will get an indictment literally 99.9943% of the time? > > That is truly remarkable. Yes. And the vast majority of those will end up with a guilty plea, and no trial - something like 95% if I remember correctly. Hopefully someone who cares more can cite that. Contrary to the impression given by high profile cases and some sections of the media and arts, the vast majority of cases are clear cut. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=21)