Ferguson Prosecutor Says No Charge Decision Until October

[kpete]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Sissyk (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Bloomberg

The Missouri grand jury that began considering evidence today in the police killing of an unarmed man won’t decide whether to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson until October “at the earliest,” a spokesman for the local prosecutor said.

The grand jury, which is presented testimony and other evidence by prosecutors, must decide whether to indict Wilson for the shooting in the St. Louis suburb, and on what charge.

A grand jury, which in this case is a panel of 12 jurors, traditionally hears evidence in many cases during the course of its term. Unlike a trial, or petit jury, a grand jury hands up an indictment rather than a verdict.

The Clayton, Missouri grand jury was empaneled in May, said Edward Magee, spokesman for prosecutor Bob McCulloch. He said that the process of presenting evidence will last until October.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-20/ferguson-prosecutor-says-no-charge-decision-until-october.html

[msanthrope]

1. Utter fucking bullshit. nt

[heaven05]

7. yep

wilson's going to walk. I did call it on zimpig, same here.

[fasttense]

41. How to throw fuel on the fire in one easy step.

Even if every word this stupid prosecutor says is true, to even come out and say this during mass protests is to be so insensitive that we all must assume this prosecutor is a psychopath.

Do these Ferguson officials really think we are so stupid we do not see through their racism and classicism?

[spockeye]

2. I don't think that will work. n/t

[secondwind]

3. geez.... are they THAT busy over there? utterly preposterous and very callous.... no regard

at all for the mother of this young man, or his family.

[rickyhall]

4. He's probably fled to Russia or some place by now anyway.

[madashelltoo]

5. Waiting for the smoke to clear.

And passions to cool. You know black folks have short attention spans.

[another_liberal]

6. Even if this is somehow inescapably true . . .

They should have had the good common sense not to say so publicly. Coming now, this statement is a blatant provocation.

[riqster]

8. They aren't used to this.

RobertEarl said that on another thread. These tactics have worked for decades, and now they don't work any more.

They aren't scared enough to change, not yet anyway.

[another_liberal]

10. They're used to dealing with Black people one at a time.

That way the cops hold all the cards.

You couldn't be more correct, this is something very different.

[riqster]

12. Yep. Classic Organizational Change Management scenario.

Most organizations suck at change. This one REALLY seems to suck at it.

[another_liberal]

15. Like the old joke . . .

It only takes one Psychiatrist to change a light blub, but the light bulb has to want to change.

[heaven05]

9. they want to provoke!!!!!

they are trying to provoke!!!! They want the provocation to be able commit more state sanctioned murder/executions. There is classic 50's BS going on here. They really do disrespect the intelligence of people, because they have none. It's classic racist bullshit. I believe they just want to kill more people, sooner or later.

[another_liberal]

11. All the evidence certainly points to that . . .

I do agree completely.

[bluestateguy]

13. Don't get your hopes up

A federal trial is more likely, and then move it the hell out of Missouri.

[n2doc]

14. Must clear that backlog of 24,000 cases/year of living-while-black arrests first

Priorities, folks!

[pnwmom]

16. Grand juries often take months. The one that indicted Rick Perry took 5 months.

This jury was empaneled in May, and they have other cases they're hearing, and they only meet once a week or so.

So this isn't unusual.

The point isn't how long it takes to do this trial -- the point is to do it right and end up with a conviction.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month.

snip

If the grand jury chooses to indict, the trial will most likely begin faster. Without a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor has to demonstrate to the trial judge that she has enough evidence to continue with the case. However, with a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor can skip that step and proceed directly to trial.

[RobertEarl]

18. This shouldn't take long

The cop shot an unarmed person who was running away from him.

The evidence can be presented in an hour.

The prosecutor is a racist bigot who would like nothing better than to drag it out so people have forgotten when he lets the killer walk.

[pnwmom]

19. But that particular shot(s) didn't hit him. We don't want him convicted of shooting -- and missing -

Michael, we want him convicted of murder.

There is other evidence that will take time to develop, before it is ever presented to the grand jury. For example, they are going to have to go through every case this cop was ever involved in, looking for complaints about him in the past. Why? Because any such complaints, for years, were stored in case files -- not officers' personnel files. If he has a pattern of attacking African Americans in the past, that will go a long way toward overcoming any jury doubts and could add to his charges.

[RobertEarl]

20. One hour, tops

There is no good reason to drag this out. If the case were reversed and the man shot the cop, you know an indictment would have already been presented and someone in jail.

[pnwmom]

21. Uh, no. Doing all that checking of old cases will take more than an hour. n/t

[RobertEarl]

24. The old cases?

What are you on about with this 'old cases' bs? This a a simple criminal matter. The cop shot him as he ran away. He needs to go to trial asap.

[pnwmom]

26. You didn't bother to read my previous post. I explained this already.

The officer's past could be an important part of the prosecution case, if he has a history of previous complaints. The officer's character and history will be an important part of the record.

There is no advantage to going to trial as soon as possible. The emphasis should be on building the strongest case, that could get past 12 jurors without a single holdout for not guilty. There is no need to rush this.

[christx30]

43. Can we trust the prosecutor

to actually build a strong case? Or is it going to be a Brad Pitt in 'Sleepers'? That's my main worry with this whole thing.

[pnwmom]

44. No. But that's another reason rushing this forward -- with the current prosecutor --

makes no sense.

We need another prosecutor to build a rock solid case.

[jeff47]

22. That's not what a grand jury is for.

You describe what you'd want to show to a trial jury.

The grand jury only has to decide if there's enough evidence to indite. 4 eyewitnesses and the autopsy showing the gun was not fired at close range, and you have enough to indite.

[pnwmom]

28. If they issued an indictment tomorrow, they would have only 70 days to fully develop

their case and then it would have to go to trial -- this is because of the speedy trial law in Missouri. This might not give them enough time to get all their depositions and other evidence put together.

If instead they take longer to get an indictment, they could be ready to set the trial date very quickly after getting the indictment -- having already gotten some good practice with a jury on how to present their evidence.

The point isn't how long it takes to do this trial -- the point is to do it right and end up with a conviction.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month.

snip

Grand juries do not need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment. Even though a grand jury may not choose to indict, a prosecutor may still bring the defendant to trial if she thinks she has a strong enough case. However, the grand jury proceedings are often a valuable test run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case.

If the grand jury chooses to indict, the trial will most likely begin faster. Without a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor has to demonstrate to the trial judge that she has enough evidence to continue with the case. However, with a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor can skip that step and proceed directly to trial.

[jeff47]

29. And 70 days is after the prosecutor is claiming the grand jury will rule

In other words, you are gaining no extra time.

Unless you're going to claim they'll wait 70 days after the grand jury rules in October, which now means your "can go right to trial" argument is irrelevant.

Delay only serves to infuriate, and to provide time for people to forget. Or for the police to conveniently stumble across crimes by all the witnesses.

[pnwmom]

30. They will have the flexibility to decide after the indictment if they have a strong enough case

to go forward immediately, or if they need more time -- up to the 70 days -- to strengthen it.

They could even decide to go forward if the grand jury fails to indict. But if the grand jury fails to indict they would know that they'd have to put together a stronger case, and they'd have get a judge to agree that they have a solid basis for going to trial.

Whatever happens, you should know that the defense has every right to waive their right to a speedy trial and will probably make use of it. So everyone should take a breath here. This is going to take longer than most of us would like. We need to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal: a fair trial and a conviction.

[jeff47]

33. Delaying the steps towards that goal is not a good sign.

The lack of indictment makes it appear that the prosecutor is not interested in perusing a case.

The fact that the prosecutor is having the cop testify to the grand jury also makes it appear he is not seeking a strong case.

The fact that the prosecutor won't step aside despite close family ties to the PD and a long relationship with the accused and PD doesn't help either. And no, Nixon can't just appoint a special prosecutor. MO law requires the local prosecutor to ask for help. He's not asking. Instead, he's pretending that Nixon can replace him. Yet another bad sign.

In other words, the delay is yet another indication that the prosecution is not exactly zealous.

[pnwmom]

35. I agree that this prosecutor should step aside and a special prosecutor should be appointed.

But I don't see a delay here. The case HAS been turned over to a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury is working on its other cases, too. Two months is not a long time to have a Grand Jury hearing a murder case.Grand Juries never give instant results -- at least, not fair Grand Juries.

[VanGoghRocks]

39. Good summation. I would merely point out that in doing it this way, it's like they're deliberately

thumbing their noses at the masses of Ferguson, taunting them by flagrantly demonstrating their callous disregard for the life of Michael Brown.

It's like they somehow think the masses of Ferguson, of this country and of the world are too slow, too stupid to get it.

Well, news flash, we get it alright, just like the French common people got that little bit about "Let them eat cake" back in 1789.

[Iamthetruth]

32. The evidence is still to be determined

emotions need to be put aside and justice needs to run its path. If all you want is revenge than its okay to want a trial and verdict tomorrow but the law does not work that way. I want justice, not revenge.

[RobertEarl]

38. The 'evidence' happened.

It is not to be determined, it happened. The cop shot an unarmed, fleeing person. The cop should be arrested and let him plead his case in court. You talking about this 'verdict tomorrow' bs, is just that bs.

If the roles had been reversed there would be a man in jail. But the cop is getting treated with special gloves and that isn't true justice and every intelligent, non-bigoted person knows it.

[pnwmom]

42. The evidence must still be collected and examined.

Neighbors of the murder site must be canvassed, witnesses must be uncovered and thoroughly interviewed, depositions must be taken, scientific studies (like ballistic studies) must be conducted and written, any history of complaints that the officer has had must be culled from all the cases he's had over years (since they won't be in his personnel file).

All of this -- and more -- takes time. Once he is arrested, the state has only 70-90 days to bring him to trial. That is not a lot of time for developing the strongest possible case against him. It's better to build the case now, prior to indictment, using the Grand Jury system.

[csziggy]

46. Thank goodness the FBI and DOJ are collecting the evidence

If it were up to the Ferguson Police Department NONE of the witnesses would have been interviewed. They made no effort to canvass the neighborhood for witnesses and no effort to contact those witnesses who told their stories in the media. I think they were happy with whatever tale Darren Wilson came up with to explain shooting Michael Brown. If this story had not brought national attention to Ferguson, it would have stopped there.

I doubt there will be any complaints against Darren Wilson - Ferguson PD and its chief impress me as being willing to overlook any infractions that don't generate blowback. Without a lawsuit or media attention, they probably sweep any complaints under the rug.

[avebury]

17. He is probably hoping that the masses will stop protesting

long before any decision is made by the grand jury.

[LiberalElite]

23. OCTOBER!?!?!!?!?!?!??!???

ARE THEY HOPING WE'LL FORGET???

[pnwmom]

31. The Grand Jury has been empaneled since May and has other cases already scheduled

on its docket. Also, it only meets a few times a month. Nothing is ever done quickly when a Grand Jury is involved, but this could produce a stronger case in the end.

[LiberalElite]

34. ok I'll calm down :)

[pnwmom]

36. The bottom line is we want a fair trial leading to a conviction that is not overturned on appeal.

Right? So, whatever it takes.

[LiberalElite]

40. of course!

[SunSeeker]

25. Meanwhile, Darren Wilson is on paid vacay. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. There will be no justice unless McCulloch is replaced with a Special Prosecutor:

McCulloch has a history of whitewashing those who murder unarmed suspects with a barrage of gunfire, and then falsely claim that the suspects were moving toward them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025418446

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025418446#post11

[olddad56]

37. that brainstorm ought to calm down the tensions Ferguson.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. He's going to walk

And every cop in the country will know that they can now summarily execute anyone they wish.

[Sissyk]

47. Locking.

This is a duplicate of this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014874721

If you would, please direct your comments to that thread.

Thank You!