The Ferguson prosecutor DIDN'T ASK for an indictment, so of course the jury didn't indict.

[pnwmom]

Whoever heard of a case being presented to a Grand Jury in which the prosecutor doesn't ask for the defendant to be charged with something?

OF COURSE they didn't indict. As many here thought, the result was pre-ordained.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The grand jury that decided not to indict Police Officer Darren Wilson operated differently from a typical grand jury in Missouri.


A typical case tends to be presented to a grand jury in about one day. The grand jurors in the Officer Wilson case met for 25 days over three months.

A prosecutor usually provides a charge or range of charges, then asks the grand jury to indict based on those options. The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, did not recommend a charge or charges against Officer Wilson.

A grand jury generally hears testimony from a few people, often the police investigators who have interviewed witnesses and examined the physical evidence.In Officer Wilson's case, 60 witnesses were called, and the grand jury heard extensive testimony from investigators, who showed pictures of the scene and described it in detail.

The grand jury does not usually hear testimony from the individual who may be charged. Officer Wilson testified for four hours.

[gollygee]

1. And I think it's important to note

That the grand jurors are going to react differently to testimony from a prosecutor to a defendant where the prosecutor is obviously sympathetic to the defendant. What would anyone take from that? Would your first assumption be corruption and racism and protection of police. (Well if you've been reading DU maybe it would, but assume you haven't been . . .) I think most people would assume the prosecutor is trying to prosecute the defendant and would be really blown away by a sympathetic treatment of the defendant by the person who is trying to prosecute him.

[shenmue]

2. Can the prosecutor be fined for not doing his job?

I mean, if he deliberately screwed it up, that's fraud, wasting the state's time and money, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

[noiretextatique]

4. he should be fired immediately

especially since he may have ties to wilson's defense fund.

[pnwmom]

5. Did you read that somewhere you can link to? n/t

[proReality]

13. I believe this is what the poster was referring to:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/

[pnwmom]

14. Thanks. I had found that and it led me to the t-shirt site,

and so I updated this OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025872751

[cpamomfromtexas]

11. No he should lose his license to practice law forever

[spanone]

3. there was no prosecutor on this case, period.

[Cha]

10. Exactly.. all dw had was defense defense defense.. and I as I write these words I'm

getting sicker and sicker.

[Blue_Tires]

15. +1

[brewens]

6. I'm no expert but it's my understanding that a grand jury can pretty much do what it wants.

You don't actually have to give a shit what the prosecuter wants. Of course they don't tell you that and leave out a few other things. A couple of the right people on there could have made a big difference. I also am pretty sure that when in session, a grand jury can ask for other cases they may know about and bring those into play. Like if there was another case of police abuse where no charges were brought by that prosecutor. You can indict whoever you want to.

[pnwmom]

7. Technically that may be true -- but in the real world, the vast majority of

Grand Juries vote to indict anyone the prosecutor asks them to.

In this case, the prosecutor didn't even suggest any charges. Why would anyone expect a jury to make up its own? It obviously followed the prosecutor's lead when it chose not to indict.

[brewens]

12. Exactly the problem. Then I may have read too many John Grishom novels! LOL

I was on a jury one time on a civil suit. Traffic accident.

I basically busted a kid for lying. His sworn deposition claimed that he first saw the woman he hit in an intersection about 50 feet in front of him and claimed that she was speeding. He's driving a pickup truck and she's in her mid-sized car. That's all it took. He was either mistaken or he was lying. If it was like he said, it couldn't have happened. His saying she was speeding actually made it worse. He would have missed her by even farther. Someone ran a red light but we had no clue who. He made it look like it had to be him.

The kids lawyer did a pretty good job though. He showed that the lady asking for 100 large blew off many of her physical therapy appointments and worked those days. Oops. We ended up making the kid pay her medical bills. Given that his insurance comapny probably ate that, I felt pretty good about the outcome.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. I must be missing something here. What's the point of taking anything before a Grand Jury

if the purpose isn't to seek an indictment?

Grand Jury proceedings begin and end with a "Bill of Indictment". Doesn't that pretty much put out there just what the intent of the proceedings are?

If you were sitting in the courtroom as a member of a Grand Jury, wouldn't you assume you were there for the purpose of charging someone with a crime? Would someone need to actually remind you that's what you were there for?

[pnwmom]

19. This indictment didn't include a range of possible charges.

Normally, the GJ would be told the specific charges it was supposed to consider. It isn't enough to assume you're there to consider indicting in general. You're supposed to know the specific charges you are to consider.

Again, it was a very unusual indictment.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Asked, and answered. Thank You. I didn't know possible charges were never mentioned. n/t

[Recursion]

16. The "rogue grand jury" theory is a favorite of Scalia, oddly enough

He's even gone so far as to call grand juries a fourth branch of government.

[davidn3600]

8. There is nothing that forces a prosecutor to pursue a case

There is no legal mechanism to force a case to be prosecuted. It is up to the district attorney (or state attorney) whether or not a case should be pursued.

I dont know about the laws in Missouri or how their system works. But if possible, what should have happened is the governor should have appointed a special prosecutor...favorably one who isn't from that area. And the reason why is because a lot of prosecutors have strong relationships with the police because they work together all the time on practically every case. So getting a prosecutor from an outside area to lead the prosecuting team would have been the better option.

[Recursion]

17. There was a Law & Order episode where somebody filed mandamus against McCoy to compel prosecution

My understanding is that the legal realities behind that are kind of sketchy.

[branford]

20. A prosecutor does not generally need to seek an indictment, by grand jury or otherwise,.

in any potentially criminal matter.

One of the reasons that most grand juries issues indictments is that prosecutors only present cases in which they are very confident in the evidence and outcome. In fact, if a prosecutor does not believe that sufficient evidence truly exists to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they might be able to obtain a conviction, the canons of ethics counsel that they should not bring charges.

In the Brown case, it is likely that McCulloch did not want to prosecute because he either did not believe the officer was guilty of any crime, or more cynically, that any prosecution was politically unwise for him.

In any event, even if a case is presented to a grand jury, a prosecutor has no obligation to recommend an indictment. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a grand jury presentment may be required for some limited matters (e.g., sometimes self-defense cases or police shootings), but the prosecutor barely goes through motions because they do not believe in the case.

Unless mechanisms exist to remove such a prosecutor, and jurisdictions differ in requirements and procedures for such removal, or the prosecutor has a legally recognized conflict of interest or similar disqualification, his or her decision and actions will be final, at least on the state level. Elections for district attorneys certainly have consequences, and any politician, including D.A.'s, are very reluctant to ever abdicate the power or responsibilities.

Of course, federal charges can be brought, if applicable and warranted, as the federal courts are an entirely separate jurisdiction. However, in the Brown matter, federal civil rights charges are demonstrably more difficult to prove, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys are just as reluctant to bring difficult cases as state D.A.'s.

With respect to Missouri law, it appears the MO Attorney General indicated that neither he nor the governor could appoint a special prosecutor absent a request from the elected district attorney or actual (not perceived) conflict of interest. If the DOJ does not bring its own charges, all criminal options against Wilson will be over. The family may bring a civil action, but I assume that the Town is fully insured, and are required to defend and indemnify Wilson for any award and legal expenses.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RjOfidvPOtcJ:https://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/missouri-attorney-general-chris-koster-statement-regarding-appointment-of-special-prosecutor-in-michael-brown-case1.docx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Cha]

9. Damn Straight he wasn't going to recuse his ass from this case.. he wanted to make sure Darren

"I wouldn't do anything differently"Wilson would get away with murder.