It’s best to avoid declaring that what was presented was “all evidence available” or “all available evidence.” That, as a practical matter, did not occur and, at any rate, even if that were true (it isn’t), it isn’t true that a prosecutor’s obligation as an advocate for the state is to just dump X evidence on the grand jury, stand back and say " 'kay … let us know whether and with what you all wanna charge him."
We don’t even know that most of the grand jury thought that way. Your phrasing implies a unity of opinion on the part of the grand jury, a unity that is speculative. It is entirely possible that eight of the twelve voted to indict, but that is not the necessary nine.
It is also possible that all of the grand jury members were of one mind, but to imply that is fudging the facts.
I haven’t found where in the evidence dump it states that Brown moved towards Wilson but, generally-speaking, Brown’s blood trail would have been from the police vehicle to a point “A” some distance away. If Brown’s blood trail then travels from point “A” to point “B”, a location closer to Wilson, then Brown would have been advancing towards/charging/walking towards Wilson.
In the evidence dump, there is a map of the area with markings where the body was and where various things were found. Brown’s blood was found 25 feet further away from Wilson than where the body was. That establishes, pretty definitively, that Brown moved at least 25 feet toward Wilson. As for the timing - AFAIR, the time (on the audio recorded) from the first set of shots that supposedly, according to all witnesses, made Brown turn around, to the last set of shots that presumably dropped Brown to the ground, was 2 seconds or so. On edit: just listened to it again. Yes - about 2 seconds.
The grand jury did not find sufficient reason to hold Wilson for trial. The grand jury consisted of 12 grand jurors but the grand jury didn’t buy what CNN and MSNBC/DNC were trying to sell to the public.
This seems to be consistent with my post – most of the witnesses agree that at the end, Brown moved towards Wilson. The disagreement was the nature of the movement – a “charge” or something else (like advancing to surrender, according to some).
Well we’re discussing how the law is administered as a practical matter, not how it is in theory. And then there’s also - in that same source - a guy named Christopher Slobogin (presumably this guy) writing in a published legal work that probable cause is “a level of certainty akin to the civil preponderance standard”, which is remarkably similar to what I wrote (and which RP declared to be “mistaken”).
But let’s grant that all these people can be mistaken. (There are apparently differing opinions about it anyway.) The thing is that Richard Parker can also be mistaken. Richard Parker saying that I’m wrong is a lawyer arguing about a legal matter with a layman and he’s entitled to the presumption that he’s right about it. But once you start relying on the assumption that all these judges and other published works are all mistaken, then that’s something else. Richard Parker is not 9 members of the SC, he’s just one lawyer out there, and he doesn’t get to decree that anyone in the world who disagrees with him is wrong.
So his arrogance on the subject was misplaced - and unfortunate too, because it probably makes it harder for him to back off it.
But more than that, what’s significant here is that even among those who say it’s not 50%, many seem to say it’s more like 40% or so (appreciating that it’s not an exact number of any sort). Which is not all that different from 50% for purposes of this specific discussion. Again, the core issue here is the insistance by RP that as long as there exist credible witnesses whose testimony supports guilt, there exists probable cause. Even if the standard is something like 40% that is still incorrect.
WADR, this seems like double-talk to me.
To me - and I believe this is true of English speakers in general - if you “believe that an offense has been committed”, then you believe that it’s more likely than not that an offense has been committed. If you believe that it’s more likely than not that an offense has not been committed, then you don’t “believe that an offense has been committed”.
In any event, how about you address the underlying question. Suppose there are some number of witnesses who credible testimony supports guilt, does this imply that there must be probable cause? Or could the GJ decide that based on other witnesses and the totality of the evidence the suspicion does not meet the PC standard?
The average in the study you cited was 31%. Not that it matters, because a judicial survey–while interesting for many purposes–is a terrible method for determining what the law requires and what the law allows. Instead, we should go by what the cases have decided.
As for the rest, you continue to mischaracterize my claims. I am not claiming that the existence of non-discredited witnesses categorically requires as a matter of law the finding of probable cause. Since I have gone so far as to explicitly disavow such a claim, I can only conclude that you’re not trying very hard to understand my actual position here.
I don’t doubt the 25 feet – as I said, that is consistent with just about all the witness testimony. As to the seconds between shots, could you link to the audio?
You’re wrong. 31% was the average number they gave for reasonable suspicion (footnote #35).
The average in the study for probable cause - per footnote #59 - was 44.52%.
These are different standards, as you know.
You got something there, by all means whip it out. So far you’ve sufficed with your own declarations. Until then, it’s reasonable to assume that judges would decide in actual cases in accordance with their general opinions
Sorry, I’m doing my best. I quoted your own words.
And what I wrote in response was: “If the GJ thought it was more likely than not that no crime was committed, then it’s their job to decline to indict. The same goes for the prosecutor. It makes no difference if there were also some credible witnesses whose testimony supported guilt. What counts is the overall evidence”. You quoted this and claimed it was “factually incorrect”. Based on everything I’ve seen, what I wrote there was factually correct, and your assertion to the contrary was itself incorrect.
You are correct that I misread that footnote.
Since we cannot even agree on the meaning of “quote,” I think we’re done here.
Which document was the map in? I haven’t found it yet.
Actually, no, it is not consistent with “just about all the witness testimony”. Quite a few of them are adamant that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. And quite a few claim some kind of “stumble” or “falling” toward Wilson - you don’t “stumble” or “fall” for 25 feet.
As for the link - here is one: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/
It is a picture of the map itself, not in any document, and I saw it on one of the evidence web sites (as well as on CNN when they were discussing it). On that site, it was together with the other crime scene photos. Can’t find it at the moment.
You can certainly stumble for 25 feet – that’s only about 8 steps, or less for a tall man.
How many witnesses who were found to be either lying or mistaken (as proven by forensics) were “pro-Brown”. How many were “pro-Wilson?” Just curious.
I counted between 3 and 4 seconds between the two groups of gunshots.
OK, I found it. 21 feet 8 inches for the furthest blood splatter to his right foot according to the crime scene measurements.
If it’s 21 feet, and 3-4 seconds, that’s much closer to walking (or stumbling) speed than it is to “charging” speed.
So how is that consistent with a charge? Seems like he walked quickly towards him then, at best (or worst). That’s not a charge.