It’s difficult to accept, but ultimately, when one’s concern is matters of policy and social movement, one person’s experience can only weigh so much. I recognize the scariness of this fact, and in response feel a sense of “fear and trembling” when I think about things like this, together with a great sense of something like gratitude that what I think and say has no actual causal impact on the decisions of people who do have those kinds of responsibilities.
Should this prosecutor have initiated a grand jury proceeding, given your stipulation that he doesn’t actually think the man is guilty of a crime?
But I’m not convinced that the exculpatory stuff is so clearly exculpatory. I would not be surprised at all if a jury found the guy guilty, after carefully reasoned deliberation. And I don’t think the grand jury was presented with a case that let them sensibly make judgments about exculpation anyway–not that it has ever been a prosecutor’s job to charge a grand jury to think about that in the first place.
How can we know whether our laws are actually equal to the task of regulating official conduct, and congruent with popular expectations of how public servants should behave, if ‘borderline’ cases are not tested in court, with sincerity and rigor and transparency?
Or, the prosecutor concluded that he didn’t think there was enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was also willing to leave the decision to go forward up to the grand jury. Sometimes, quite rarely of course, but sometimes, prosecutors are willing to give up the final decision-making up to a judge or a jury. Good prosecutors don’t have to rely solely on their own determination in every single case, especially tough cases like this one where the evidence is contradictory.
Also, there is something to be said for having a grand jury decide in cases where a segment of the community has indicated their displeasure with your decisionmaking.
How do advocate for “sincerity, rigor, and transparency” in the system, when, at the very same time, you seem to be advocating that the grand jury make its decision solely based on limited information from questionable witnesses and to the exclusion of all exculpatory evidence?
Then why did its presentation cause the grand jury to no-bill? The prosecution presented it in order to show how hopeless it was to expect a conviction. Don’t you think its presentation by lawyers dedicated solely to Wilson’s exoneration would have an even more marked effect? Especially under the much more exacting standards of “reasonable doubt” and the presumption of innocence vs. “probable cause”.
Why not? It’s accurate. Brown was spoiling for trouble. For heaven’s sake, he was walking down the center of the street with the stolen cigars in his hand, instead of on the sidewalk. Then he tries to trap Wilson in his car, tries to grab his gun, and charges at him.
He thought he was Hot Shit. Just not hot enough to melt lead.
I think he acted in the way you want, to try to send a signal that justice was being done, despite his (accurate) belief that an indictment was not possible. I think in this case that was wrong, and he would have sent a better signal by simply refusing to indict, signalling that justice will not be denied by rioting and meaningless protest.
So to an extent yes, I think he avoided some of his responsibility to act correctly and dismiss this case. However, had he actually attempted to seek an indictment at the Grand Jury rather than provide all the evidence, he would have been not just irresponsible but outright unethical.
The signalling function should not outweigh the actual administration of justice, judicial ethics, or the presumption of innocence.
I was speaking generally there; there are a number of currently notorious police-conduct cases. In the specific, I think an actual trial hearing is the only place a sincere, rigorous effort could take place. The grand jury process clearly isn’t designed to be a final word in a difficult case with contradictory evidence.
Your thoughts might be interesting and relevant were we talking about a difficult case with contradictory evidence. But we’re talking about a case where there’s not even probable cause of a crime being committed, so there’s no need to share your pointless ponderings.
Yes, you are. I think you confuse the difference between a grand jury and a criminal trial. Whether or not they could prove Officer Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t a tough decision, to me. They can’t. The evidence, even taken in the light most favorable to get a guilty verdict, is way too insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe, it would be possible, but I wouldn’t think so.
But to get a grand jury to issue a true bill? As I said before, that is possible. If you exclude all exculpatory evidence, refuse to allow the defendant to testify, do not impeach any witness you present, and go light on the forensic evidence, I think it would be possible to obtain a true bill. It would be a tough call, but possible.
So, a conscientious prosecutor (of which I am unconvinced this one was) could simply present the evidence, warts and all, to the grand jury and let them decide whether to go forward. That has the benefit of having the prosecutor’s discretion be checked the grand jury, as well as hopefully decreasing the anger and distrust of the segment of the community that wanted a conviction.
That’s simply not true. That is precisely one of their major functions: to be the final word in cases where there is contradictory evidence, but the government can’t even meet the lower burden of proof at grand jury proceedings. They are exactly supposed to the final word in those cases.
