This assumes that Darren Wilson is charged with a crime in the Michael Brown shooting and it goes to trial. It also assumes that it is Brown in the video. The family has claimed that it is prejudicial against Michael Brown. So do you think that the video will be allowed as evidence in Wilson’s ultimate trial? It’s already been determined that Wilson was not aware of a robbery at the convenience store prior to his stopping Brown and Dorian Johnson. Is it pertinent?
I say “yes”. Even though Wilson was not aware of the robbery and that Brown and Johnson were potential suspects, it goes to Brown’s state of mind when Johnson rolled up in his police cruiser. Brown could have assumed that Johnson was there to arrest him for the convenience store robbery, which could have influenced his actions during the stop.
I’m calling a “no true bill” from the grand jury–meaning he won’t be indicted or charged at the state level. Reserving judgment on the feds at this point. As such, the video’s value as evidence is moot.
Police Chief Thomas Jackson’s statement was a bit more nuanced than that. He didn’t say Wilson was totally unaware of the robbery, rather he said that:
The police chief stated the stop was unrelated to the robbery case and that the officer was not aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery. However the chief does not know (or at least did not know at the time of the interview) if officer Wilson was aware of the robbery.
If recordings of the radio dispatch related to the robbery indicate that officer Wilson reasonably may have known about the robbery then I think the surveillance video will be admitted.
I think the video is relevant because of Brown’s state of mind. He’d just robbed a store a few minutes earlier. He’s assuming the cop wants to arrest him for that. When actually the cop just wanted him to quit blocking the road. That misunderstanding lead to Brown resisting arrest and the subsequent shooting.
He was also wearing the same yellow socks as the robber. Do people think there are two very big black men in yellow socks carrying a box of cigars in Ferguson at the same time?
That guy was big. Didn’t they say 6’ 4"? He towered over that poor store clerk.
If he’s tried, it’s admissible. Ultimately the only way to keep it out would be the trial judge ruling that the probative value is overcome by the prejudicial value, but if that test is applied correctly, it’s in.
I am not so sure it has “It’s already been determined that Wilson was not aware of a robbery at the convenience store prior to his stopping Brown and Dorian Johnson” but that said…
I say yes simply due to a recent report where a “friend” of the officer recounted the version of events from the officers perspective that stated he started to drive off and then stopped when a “report came in identifying Brown as a potential suspect in the convenience store robbery”.
While we may want to automatically assume that is a lie or a cover, surely there would be either a recording or at the very least testimony or some trail of evidence to this fact if true. Given that - IMO - the officer would/should know just how easy this would be to ascertain, I have to believe he would not of said that if untrue.
I will leave the “the whole department is covering for him” tinfoil theories to the same nut jobs that think our government took down the towers and we never landed on the moon. I for one think that is utter nonsense.
The truth is going to come out one way or another but the video will be relevant in my opinion, but more so the defense.
His buddy already said he stole the cigars. In this case they were Swisher Sweets which are popular cigars used to make blunts. That information identifies him in the video.
See, I was assuming the opposite, since I can’t see how the robbery had anything to do with the shooting (assuming the cop didn’t know about it), and would prejudice the jury into assuming he was acting criminally later.
Can you elaborate on how the test would be applied to get the outcome you state?