False testimony that he then supplied to the Feds as well?
What is the standard for appointing a special prosecutor and why wasn’t it done in this case? Does a special prosecutor routinely bring cases to a Grand Jury or would they just try the case?
If you ask me, I think that “fair probability” is consistent with “more likely than not”, so I don’t see any contradiction. I would guess there’s a fair probability that this professor is right and you’re wrong, especially in light of the other source saying the same thing, but I’m not inclined to go about researching this further, so I’ll leave it here.
Well that’s very possible. There might frequently be reasons for believing the “guilt” witnesses more, e.g. their being police as you suggest, or the defense witnesses being friends or relatives of the accused. All possible. But none of that applies here, and - more importantly - none of that means that the result in this case is “unjust”. Unless you have some reason that the prosecution should have believed these hypothetical witnesses more than the others, then you have no basis for your claim earlier that this GJ approach would have led to an unjust result if other witnesses existed.
And if all you’re doing now is saying “well maybe there were witnesses whose version favored Wilson’s guilt who were more credible than the others and the GJ erred in finding the others more credible”, then I can’t argue with you, but I also wouldn’t bother, as it’s much too speculative.
If he was hit by a bullet from the front, how far might blood drops travel? The only evidence that he was standing at that further distance is the presence of blood drops.
I have no special expertise in the physics and forensics of a 9mm round. My question is only whether or not that is “really the only explanation.”.
All in all, looks like a win win for everyone.
Heh. Ok. I also have no interest in persuading you of textbook law over your reliance on some media interview and “lawyers.com.” Maybe some conservative lawyer will stop by and correct you. Paging Bricker.
Sharpton went on the air immediately following the announcement and made a number of deliberately inflammatory statements. He accused the DA of ducking the question of the Grand Jury vote, when in fact he is prohibited by law from either knowing or disclosing such information, and specifically said so in answer to several questions about it. Sharpton is a self-serving asshole, clearly twisting the narrative to his own ends in my opinion, and does nothing to help calm things down.
You have to say my name three three times before I appear.
Absolutely correct. (Although probable cause does require a look at the totality of the circumstances, so it might not survive a single witness contradicted by a parade of others).
Can you explain the basis for this? And do you have any source which defines probable cause or fair probability (for GJ purposes) in a way that contradicts the “more likely than not” definition?
FWIW, here’s another legal source
If you guys are right, then there are quite a lot of people who should know better who are making this same mistake.
[I don’t think this is relevant at this point, as Richard Parker seems to have backed off his initial implication that any sort of credible contradictory witnesses should have led to an indictment, but whatever.]
Lawyers don’t like to define (and have a hard time defining) probable cause because it’s can’t be neatly explained in mathematical terms. Preponderance is easy: more than 50%.
Here are some cites from what appear to be legal textbooks, so Richard Parker may be happy (or not):
http://www.drewlawbooks.com/Definitions.pdf
http://www.simplifylaw.com/books/LegalMethod/index351.html
So I guess it turns out that everyone is right, although Richard Parker’s certainty (and arrogance) turns out to have been unjustified.
You misstate my point slightly, and I have not backed off of it. I continue to believe that if there are credible witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would show a crime was committed, that it follows that there is probable cause. I also continue to believe that if there was probable cause in this case, Officer Wilson is being treated differently from ordinary criminals, and therefore unjustly, by the grand jury not indicting. I am not arguing that every crime for which there is probable cause should be prosecuted. I am arguing that the decision to prosecute or not should not turn on how close the relationship is between the prosecutor and the suspect.
I agree with Bricker that there probably are circumstances under which probable cause can be negated by overwhelming contradictory testimony. But that is quite different from probable cause being negated by some kind of overall evaluation of which testimony is more likely true. I also don’t know if there actually is credible witness testimony that suggests a crime happened here, which is why the relevant part of the post that started this asks a question.
The first is a book for nonlawyers and the second is Australian. The one thing we do know about probable cause is that it requires less than a 50% certainty.
A lot of those tweets were criticizing the media and their coverage of this case and that criticism is not unfounded.
I’m not really interested in rubbing your face in it, but if you’re going to call me arrogant then I’ll give you one more response on this. You are unequivocally wrong and I am absolutely right to say that probable cause is not the same as a preponderance of the evidence. Probable cause is, as a legal matter, not quantified like preponderance of the evidence is, nor is it disproven by an assessment that non-crime is more likely than crime.
These various rules of thumb that your googling is turning up are not the proper legal definition of probable cause. Pro tip: proper legal definitions are found in cases, like the one I cited. Try citing some. That would be helpful. Probable cause is an unquantified standard and requires only a fair probability under the circumstances. Consequently, there is probable cause when, say, two credible witnesses contradict one credible witness who testifies that a crime was committed.
I’m sorry your amateur googling of the subject has confused you, or that my certainty of an elementary concept of law comes across to you as arrogance rather than simple acknowledgment of a fact that every lawyer learns.
Generally-speaking, a drop of liquid falling vertically would result in a round, or a more round, impact site. Introduce an angle of impact, and the impact site would be more of a “V” shape. The greater the angle, the longer and narrower the impact site would appear. In other words, if you are dripping blood and standing still, the drops would appear round. If you are dripping blood while walking/running, the drops would appear V-shaped with the narrow end of the “V” pointing towards the point of origin.
What I still don’t understand, and perhaps one of the lawyers can enlighten me, is why the prosecutor took this odd middle ground approach. Am I correct that the standard operating procedure would be either (a) “do not prosecute because you think there is no probably cause” or (b) “present only the evidence to the grand jury required to obtain a true bill”?
It seems that by choosing © “present all possible evidence including exculpatory and contradictory evidence” the DA made the entire process seem even shadier. The fact that his press conference sounded more like a defense lawyer than a prosecutor doesn’t help.
I guess I’m saying that McCollugh should either have had the courage of his convictions and declined to prosecute, or done his fucking job and got an indictment.
Taking a guess… did he present all to a grand jury because he didn’t think there was probable cause and declining to prosecute would be received with “racist cops being protected by racist district attorney”?
If he simply dismissed it without taking to trial it would be more of the “racist cops getting protected by the system”. Sending it to a grand jury puts it more on the citizens (at least twelve of them) to say there isn’t enough there.
There are some prosecutors that always follow a middle ground approach. In fact, there is a school of thought in the prosecution bar that says the automatic indictment is a horrible thing and all prosecutors should attempt to present a balanced view to the grand jury. I think Bricker can probably confirm that this is very much a minority view, however. It doesn’t seem to be one that Robert McCulloch shared before the Brown case.
Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t say that “probable cause is […] the same as a preponderance of the evidence”. I said they are apparently “equivalent for our purposes”.
Apparently there are no clear numeric guidelines, so there won’t be any cases, citable or otherwise, which would provide a legal definition which includes numbers and probabilities. But what’s significant is how it’s used as a practical matter. And it would appear that despite your own legal background, there are also a lot of other people whose background and training are by all indication as good as your own who do put numbers on it, and who feel that it at least approximates some level of confidence, which some put at 50%+. Or higher, in fact. See http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=fac_works footnotes 59 & 60.
So your arrogance continues to be unjustified. Any number of terms like “unequivocally wrong”, “amateur googling”, “confused” etc. don’t cover that up. You’re entitled to your opinion, and it appears to be shared by some others. But there are also others who are just as smart and trained as you who disagree with it.
Sorry it had to be pointed out to you by an amateur. Happens.
I haven’t looked through all the evidence released as of yet, but I would say that I’m inclined to trust the grand jury in this matter.
If they came back with a verdict that the populace saw as “unfavorable,” they knew what would potentially be “at stake” - the rioting and violence we saw last night. Even though they are supposed to remain completely unbiased, I know that if I was in their shoes, there’d be a part of me that would want to indict Wilson, if only to appease the masses and prevent destruction and violence. That being said, I’d still try my best to remain unbiased, and if there was overwhelming evidence showing no wrongdoing on Wilson’s part, I’d have no problem with not indicting the officer.
Obviously, YMMV, but that’s just how I see things.