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…
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.
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).
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
Bringing him before a grand jury when the evidence does not warrant it is hardly an instance of favoritism.
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.
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.
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
[quote=“steronz, post:353, topic:705596”]
. 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.
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?
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?
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
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.
It is prosecutorial misconduct whether he is charged for it or not. It is unethical to do that. Is that what you’re advocating?
How often is that done?
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.
How many prosecutors do it this way again?
I already answered that question, from you, in this very thread. Many.
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.
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.
No it doesn’t. I have already explained this.
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”.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.