# Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Discussion Thread

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596>\
**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:** 2\
**Page:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/402 "2014-12-17T21:50:22Z")

</div>

> [@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.

That doesn’t strike me as very remarkable. Getting an indictment is (usually) not that hard, because the standard is much lower than for a trial. But a DA would not be likely to seek an indictment unless he thought he had enough evidence to convict. Unless, as **Steophan** mentions, he wants to pressure a defendant into a guilty plea.

This case was different - the DA seemed aware that there was no chance of a conviction, so he showed that this was so at the grand jury hearing.

And I keep asking - what is the advantage of a trial for a defendant who isn’t going to be convicted? It is not to establish what the facts were - trials are not for that purpose. It is not to prove “guilt or innocence” - trials begin with a presumption of innocence, and only establish if the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We can be reasonably certain that, in this case, the prosecution could not have proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This was made clear at the grand jury, since not even probable cause was established.

A trial would not, and _could not_, do anything that the grand jury didn’t already do. Could Wilson have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No, because they couldn’t even be reasonably sure that a crime was committed.

Again - what is the advantage of trying a man without enough evidence to convict him?

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596/403 "2014-12-17T22:09:57Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> That doesn’t strike me as very remarkable. Getting an indictment is (usually) not that hard, because the standard is much lower than for a trial.

You’re also falling for the false statistic. The “99.9943%” is for federal grand juries. For state grand juries, as I showed above, there are a lot more “no true bill” decisions.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-discussion-thread/705596.md?page=20)