In regular case yes. In this case there was an enormous political and public pressure so the prosecutor decided to do it this way.
In order to
[ul][li]try to weasel out of confronting the consequences of a dismissal, and/or[/li][li]use the grand jury to stall for a while while tempers cooled, and/or[/li][li]involve the community in discovering that the evidence for a conviction simply wasn’t there, and/or [/li][li]show the black community of Ferguson (as well as outside agitators and race pimps) that a conviction of Wilson simply could not be achieved. [/ul][/li]
Correct. It is the grand jury’s job to decide if there is probable cause that a crime was committed by the accused. They decided, looking at the evidence, that there was not.
No, a trial court does not need to judge anything if there is not probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. There was no such probable cause.
As mentioned, the DA chose to empanel a grand jury for a variety of reasons, some of which appear cowardly and venal and some quite honorable.
I disagree. I believe that in this case, the justice system worked as intended. The intent is not to indict a person unless there is probable cause to believe he committed a crime. The grand jury decided there was no such probable cause. That is how it is supposed to work.
In the Zimmerman/Martin case, there was no grand jury, and Zimmerman was brought to trial and acquitted resoundingly (at considerable expense to the public and to Zimmerman and his supporters). Do you believe the interests of justice were better served in that case than in this?
I repeat the question: what purpose is served by a DA’s bringing a man to trial when it is nearly certain that he will be acquitted? This doesn’t establish any facts or clear the air or satisfy idiots - it just wastes time and resources on show trials.
Your statistics on grand jury indictments somewhat miss the point. DAs generally do not seek indictment on cases where they are reasonably certain that the accused cannot be convicted, either because there is insufficient evidence, or because he is actually innocent. In this case, the DA presented a case to the grand jury that included evidence from the defense’s POV. This is unusual, but it made it clear that there was virtually no chance of Wilson’s conviction.
I think that is a better idea than pushing for an indictment that will result in a trial, and wasting millions. It is less efficient/effective than what you and I agree should have been the course of action - simply refusing to convene a grand jury, because there was no evidence of Wilson’s guilt - but I also understand the community “pressure” and the riots that would most likely have resulted.
“It’s impossible to get a conviction, but if we dismiss there will be riots. So let’s show what we have to a grand jury, and they at least will see that it is impossible to get a conviction. That takes the heat off us, and saves the money we would waste on a trial where we lose.”
Regards,
Shodan
Grand jury proceedings are secret. The prosecutor in this case chose to release the evidence presented but he did not have to.
This is very rare to the point of being unheard of. If the prosecutor is seeking an indictment, as it is their job to do if they have gone to a grand jury, then they do not need to present any evidence of innocence whatsoever.
People burned down shit anyway. Are you suggesting it would have been worse than it was?
So you think it worked out to have a show trial where it is abundantly apparent to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention that the prosecutor intentionally threw the trial?
You think that gave the people a real sense of justice being served? That is your version of the justice system working as it should?
It certainly did not avoid any riots.
It was not a show trial. In a trial, the level of proof of guilt is a LOT higher. This didn’t even rise to the level of probable cause. Going on trial with this material would have been a travesty.
So then it was a show trial by your own definition.
The prosecutor should have exercised his judgement and thrown out the case and not wasted time on a grand jury in the first place.
Instead they made a show of it and the prosecutor ran a grand jury in a way it almost never is.
Again, for the Nth time, there was too much political and public pressure to do that.
So then they did a show trial. Gotcha.
That sure mollified the masses. :rolleyes:
The DA did not intentionally throw the grand jury presentation. The DAs intentionally presented evidence tending to exonerate the accused in order to show that the accused could not possibly be convicted.
Unfortunately, the less intellectually gifted citizens of Ferguson MO, assisted by the various slimeballs, asswipes, and trolls from out of town, did in fact pitch the city-wide equivalent of a temper tantrum. That’s unfortunate, but I would suspect the rioting would be far more immediate if the DA had announced that she wasn’t going to convene a grand jury six months ago.
What are the sorts of people you believe should be indicted when there is not enough evidence to convict them, and what are the advantages of trying them?
Regards,
Shodan
So they did a grand jury that was presented all the evidence. If you think that’s a “show trial” that’s your problem.
IMO you do not show that justice is being done by having a show trial and throwing the case. If the political scene is such that the prosecutor cannot drop the case then go ahead and have the trial. Let the evidence come out in a trial court where guilt or innocence is actually determined (not by a secret grand jury) and let the chips fall where they may. If the evidence is so squarely in favor of innocence it should not be much of a problem.
Will there be riots? Maybe but I submit people’s faith in the process is hurt far, far more by having a bullshit show trial than it is by going to trial.
Can you point to other cases where the grand jury was “presented all the evidence”?
I’ll wait…
No you don’t. How lucky that that didn’t happen in this case.
From the article that your side so frequently cites:
…newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.
…
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
So, as you can see, this was definitely not unprecedented. And I am not certain, but pretty sure, that those grand juries cited in this paragraph were, in fact, presented with all the evidence.
No.
This does not really capture the role of the grand jury. It’s not the job of the prosecutor to get an indictment – it’s the job of the prosecutor to get an indictment only IF there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and IF he believes he has a reasonable chance of proving the charges at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it’s not strictly true that the prosecutor does not need to present any evidence of innocence. In New York, the target of a grand jury investigation has a statutory right to be called by the prosecutor to appear and testify on his own behalf.
By the way, that federal grand jury low percentage of “no bills” is completely apples to oranges comparison. Wilson/Brown case didn’t go to federal grand jury. It went to a state grand jury. As an example, here is a research paper about one Ohio county’s grand jury system. The paper concerns something else, but on page 10 it shows this:
… the Grand Jury Section of the Prosecutor’s Office in Hamilton County, Ohio issued reports for 5,891 felony indictments for the calendar year 2002, or 68% of all cases presented. Over the same period, 2,818 cases, or 32% of cases presented, were reported out as “no true bill” or ignored.
32%.
Hi, Terr - do you know what it means to say the cases were “ignored”?
Regards,
Shodan
And here is another one - showing that at 3-4%, “no true bill” decisions are definitely not “unprecedented” even in general cases (not police shootings) in NYS:
an article: New Trend Before Grand Juries: Meet the Accused - The New York Times
Last October, Anwaar Muhammad, now 21, nervously faced a Queens grand jury after his lawyer, Philip B. Stone, concluded that Mr. Muhammad’s slender build, clean record and soft-spoken nature would undercut police accounts that he had assaulted officers at a no-alcohol club the previous spring.
At first, Mr. Muhammad said recently, the experience of addressing 23 strangers was nerve-racking. Then, he said, ‘‘when I was talking, it looked as if they were really paying attention, like they really wanted to find out what happened.’’
The grand jury voted, in legal parlance, ‘‘no true bill of indictment,’’ and Mr. Muhammad no longer faced any criminal charges.
At the Legal Aid Society, which represents tens of thousands of defendants every year, some lawyers have aggressively allowed their clients to testify before grand juries. In some years, they said, grand jurors in some boroughs voted not to indict in more than 60 percent of cases in which Legal Aid clients testified.
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.
But, according to you, this was not politically possible. Given that then a trial was in order.
Instead the prosecutor takes the case to a grand jury and then presents the case in a way prosecutors almost never do and fails to get an indictment when it would have been trivial to do so. Fails to get an indictment when it is practically unheard of not to.
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.
That is the reality on the ground. 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. A lot of people will feel he got away with murder.
This undermines people’s faith in the system which frankly was not all that good to begin with. Why you see this as the desirable outcome is beyond me. 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.
From reading the paper, apparently presented in front of the grand jury, and neither an indictment nor “no true bill” returned.