It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

[morningfog]

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

[ecstatic]

1. CORRUPT. PD, attorneys, etc. nt

[postulater]

2. The John Doe didn't charge Scott Walker.

[AngryAmish]

3. I have practiced law for 21 years

Number of time I have heard of no bills? 0.

It does not happen in the wild.

[morningfog]

4. I wish all defendants were given the tratment Wilson got.

All evidence, especially exculpatory, going to the grand jury.

[avebury]

5. Unfortunately we have learned that when a Prosecutor rigs

the system it can happen. He has refused to indict other cops who have been found to have committed a crime.

[Logical]

9. Thanks for this information. nt

[noiretextatique]

6. no indictment was always the plan

the just set it up (or tried) to make it legitimate.

[Logical]

7. A friend was on federal grand jury for months and indited EVERY TIME. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

8. CORRUPTION?

[JCMach1]

10. Prosecutor buried the case... it's absolutely clear

[cheyanne]

11. Here is one lawyer's take on strange process used by McColloch

"Had the prosecution desired an indictment against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, the presentment would have taken an hour, maybe two, and there would have been a true bill by close of business the next day, well before Michael Brown had been laid to rest. The grand jury isn’t the venue to present “all the evidence.” That’s what trials are for. The grand jury serves a very limited function, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists so that there is probable cause to proceed to trial."

This is from Simple Justice blog of Scott Greenberg. It's at http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/#more-22871.

He presents McColloch as trying to pawn off on the grand jury the decision that he as prosecutor should make.

Here is another lawyer blog at http://herculesandtheumpire.com/ that asks lawyers to comment on whether they would have indicted Wilson. Many interesting views. One that seems common to most prosecutors is that it is a two-step process to indict. First, the grand jury determines if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. At this point the prosecutor has to decide if there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction.

In other words he evaluates the "evidence" to see if it is strong enough to convince a jury. This evaluation could involve the veracity of differing witnesses, the ambiguity of the physical evidence. True, if he believes that he does have a strong case to go to trial, he may try to influence them. But he has to take into account that while he feels someone is guilty and the evidence is not strong, he cannot in good faith, prosecute knowing that the person is "legally" guilty. (I hope I haven't screwed up the argument too much in retelling.)

It seems that McColloch gamed the system.