I think Wilson is a bad cop, quite possibly a racist, but I also think this was an unwinnable case.

Bravo!

Riiiiiiiiiight. It was all about "winnability." *sarcasm*

(2) get an indictment by being selective with the evidence, go through a trial, and inevitably get an acquittal.

The second scenario also would have likely ended with community tensions running high.

protect the cop at any cost.....

This does happen in the US justice system.

would run high. It's a tragic situation. A trial would have either exonerated (most likely) Wilson or convicted him. But Wilson and the people of Ferguson would have had clarity and could have started the process of improving the training of their police officers. Wilson was not well trained. He lost it. He was scared, and he lost it. He should have called for back-up instead of backing up his car. But then, hindsight is always clearer.

He should have been brought before a jury. That there was conflicting testimony was all the more reason for a jury trial. Yes. He probably would not have been convicted. But a trial is about more than conviction. Lots more.

Under the circumstances, with conflicting testimony and no adversarial cross-examination, a trial would have been proper.

Winning a trial is not always the point in law. Jury trials serve a higher purpose than just stacking up points for the prosecutors' office. As it is, Wilson is not exonerated in the minds of a large number of people.

This case has been compared to OJ's case. OJ was exonerated. Perhaps the verdict was incorrect but it was final. Wilson deserved the opportunity to get a final, jury exoneration or conviction -- for clarity and certainty.

I don't think so.

I supported the protests because I believe fundamental change has to be made in the law itself, and in the way LE police and interact with the black community.

I have never supported protests for the purpose of getting the DA to bring charges if the the charges were not warranted. No amount of pressure should be able to sway a DA. Not even the possibility of riots.

McCulloch has an entire family that works for police, had a father shot by an African American, iirc.

He deliberately bollixed this up. He got the outcome he wanted.

If he had done the job a prosecutor is supposed to do, this should have gone to trial. If the witnesses were unreliable, that could have been examined in cross-examinations. You don't just screw the pooch on your job because you're a lazy ass who fears having to work to win a case.

I think others would have had to do most of the grunt work in preparing for a trial.

of a killer cop, and to white-wash that cop's extrajudicial execution of an unarmed Black teen. He worked very hard to stay on the case when he should've recused himself and allowed a special prosecutor to step in and present the evidence to the GJ. I recall how fired up he was to stay on the case, and how he kept telling M$M that if the Governor wants to replace him with a special prosecutor, then he should go on ahead and do it, but he's "not walking away from his responsibility as a prosecutor" - justice be damned.

As far as I could see, he did not need to do anything (other than not take the step of recusing himself) to stay on the case.

to convince the ignorant and systemically-subdued American populace still takes a certain amount of finesse to pull off successfully. You didn't think he just stood there and knew what to say right off the cuff, did you?

All McCulloch had to do, out of respect for the Brown family after it was revealed that he had strong connections to the police force and, iirc, a father murdered by a Black man, was to say that he will respectfully recuse himself and allow the Governor to appoint a special prosecutor due to conflict of interest. He didn't need the Governor's permission to step aside, but McCulloch was defiant and determined to get Wilson off for cold-blooded murder, as the lawsuits that are to come will show Officer JugEars to be.

A DA is not supposed to push for prosecute in every case that crosses their desk no matter what...

They are the first line of analysis and they have discretion in how they handle it otherwise we end up with zero tolerance bullshit and why even bother to have a Grand Jury in the first place?

violation of attorneys' ethics in my opinion when a DA who relies on the police for testimony and the facts in the cases he tries to then present a claim against a police officer to a grand jury.

Here there was a lot of conflicting testimony. Some facts appear to have been ignored by the prosecutor during the grand jury hearing. And the prosecutor tainted the grand jury by handing its members a copy of a law that had been overruled by the US Supreme Court.

The DA should have asked for a special prosecutor in this case. He should not have handled it from the DA's office. It was sort of like a DA bringing a case against one of the staff in his office. It has the appearance of unethical conduct even if it wasn't at all. That's my opinion. I am unaware of any legal ruling that agrees with me.

It's part of the job... By that standard he should step aside for every case so that he doesn't favor the police...

Then what's the point?

than when he's prosecuting a case brought to him by the police. I know you can recognize the difference.

There is an inherent conflict of interest. They work with the police, and have to continue to have a working relationship with the police, and prosecuting a case against a police officer can threaten that.

Apparently he has had four other cases against police officers that never reached the indictment stage, either.

I think McCulloch's strong police connections caused him to plan to throw this case from the very beginning, not because the case is unwinnable, but because he is prejudiced in favor of the police. His own father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty by a black suspect.

What he did do was manipulation; he created the aura of a fake trial by bringing all the evidence in, yet, unlike a real trial, there was no cross-examination of witnesses. Wilson's testimony was unchallenged. According to reports, much of the pro-Michael Brown material was challenged in these hearings. McCulloch became a defacto defense attorney rather than the prosecutor he is supposed to be.

and African-Americans wonder if the justice system is stacked against them ....

by presenting the evidence selectively. But imagine the defense attorneys at trial tearing apart the witnesses and their shifting stories on cross-examination and tell me that there would have been any chance at all of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course the testimony of many of the witnesses would be destroyed. I don't think that we know enough of the validity of each witness through this secret judicial hearing. In a public court of law, we would know that through examination by the prosecution and the defense.

There many well be a chance beyond a reasonable doubt that we will never know about because the examination didn't go that far. Without a trial we will never know.

and even though I think Wilson is a murdering scumbag, would not have any problem whatsoever if and when this occurred.

This is a rapper with no criminal record in California facing LIFE in prison for some allegedly terrorist song lyrics. Fucking looking at life for some song lyrics and they managed to get a fucking indictment. So..................fuck McCullough. He didn't want an indictment and he achieved his goal.

DAs "obtain an indictment by presenting the evidence selectively" to Grand Juries ALL THE TIME. In this case the jackass deliberately buried the GJ with tons of conflicting evidence and testimony. This is a police state taking care of it's own, nothing more, nothing less. You are either completely ignorant of how the joke known as The Justice System operates or are being deliberately intellectually dishonest.

With a bit of exploration, it would be easy for a jury to understand
that when Mike Brown was running away, and gun shots were
being fired, and moments later he was dead on the ground.. well
I myself would have made that quick assumption.

Instead, it was presented that the witnesses were liars, disproved
by the forensics.

A jury ought to have had the opportunity to thoroughly question
and explore why in the world Wilson got out of the car and
started chasing them, shooting recklessly.

It is very possible there was a winnable case. But he didn't want
a winnable case. He would have had to prosecute a cop. I am
completely in agreement, Democrat or not, that he was so arrogant
not to recuse himself, out of respect for Mike Brown's family.

And some of the supposed eyewitnesses turned out to not have even seen the shooting.

in order to gain an indictment all the time.

Had got the indictment and the defense attorneys tore the witnesses apart, it would have happened in open court, i.e., where the public could see it.

And if Wilson was acquitted, the level of tension in the community would have been no where near what it is today ... remember the Zimmerman trial?

while omitting the fact that the guy later admitted he didn't see the shooting at all.

Yes, an indictment would indeed have been easy to obtain.

And found very little challenge to his testimony. I was a bit surprised since his testimony doesn't completely square up with the forensics evidence.

and then tried to open the car door -- hitting Johnson just a tiny bit but hitting Brown harder?

That detail is when the violence in the confrontation started. At a trial, a real prosecutor would, in my opinion, have examined that part of the story a little more carefully. Opening the car door so close to Wilson and Brown as to have touched them was aggressive. Was Wilson trying to pick a fight? Was he not only scared but angry? A good cross-examination would have ferreted out the truth.

It would have been hard to get a conviction, but then you never know what can be revealed under cross-examination.

It seems to me that it was not sound police practice to back up the car and open its door when it was so close to Michael Brown and Johnson when, at the time, Wilson regarded them as suspects in the store incident. It seems as though Wilson was trying to set up a resisting arrest scenario. After all, Wilson testified that he had been surprised by Michael Brown's hostile attitude when he previously told Michael to walk on the sidewalk instead of the street. Police know that a young male who has just perpetrated a foolish act is likely to up the ante when confronted by a police officer. I think that, when Wilson opened the car door, Michael lost his temper and pushed it back. Both of them proceeded to ratchet up the use of force. I think that Wilson drew his weapon and Michael pushed Wilson's arm to avoid being shot. The first shot ensued nonetheless. I do not think this chain of events should have gotten this far. Wilson should have radioed for backup when he realized that Michael Brown matched the description of the perpetrator in the store incident.

honest. A trial would have served a social purpose although a conviction may have been highly unlikely. Police officers have enormous responsibility for maintaining peace on our streets and even in our homes and workplaces. It's a tough job. But it is a public job. Police officers are public servants. They should be prepared to answer to the public to a greater extent than, let's say, private delivery service employees. Police officers are entrusted with a lot of power. Their mistakes can cost lives. And so they should be held to a higher standard.

questions regarding his decisions and why he made them as he did. Why did you feel it necessary to point out his party affiliation in your very first sentence?

McCulloch should have removed himself from the case given the complete lack of trust he had from the community in which the killing occurred. He did not. Everything that occurred from that point was tainted, everything.

Your trust in MCCulloch is badly misplaced.

Is that wrong of me? Perhaps. I just think in general Democrats are less likely to be racists.

extrajudicial execution, don't you? If you don't, then you should. His father was a cop, too. He was propelled to power using his father's death during his campaign.

What stronger motive could a man have to exonerate the murderer of Black man than to ensure that his White murderer, a cop, gets off scot-free?

how could he credibly serve as DA at all? *Ever*.

Must he step aside in EVERY case where a black male is arrested for homicide?

Must he step aside in EVERY case where a black male is a victim of homicide?

Or, assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, domestic violence or embezzlement for that matter.

And what about black females? They're black too, aren't they?

But the answer to each and every one one of your questions in your defense of McCulloch is a resounding YES.

Contrary to most cases that are presented to a grand jury, McCulloch has allowed three months - pay attention here, THREE MONTHS - before presenting the case to a Grand Jury. McCulloch could have charged Wilson immediately, but he chose to convene a grand jury instead and used three months in the hope that the anger in the Black community would subside. As everyone can see, even you, it hasn't.

McCulloch had refused to recommend charges to the grand jury, a move that discourages jurors from indicting.

In 23 years as County Prosecutor, McCulloch has not prosecuted a single police shooting.

It's understandable that it's slipped your mind since we haven't seen a scintilla of evidence to show otherwise, but McCulloch is not the County's defense attorney. He's the PROSECUTOR. His job is to PROSECUTE. But if you believe he did everything he could to prosecute killer-cop and professional liar, Darren Wilson, despite his poor track record as I've listed above, and that he would change his 23-year modus operandi and obvious vendetta against Blacks, then I know where you're coming from and nothing will open your eyes and I'm done with this discussion because, obviously, cold hard facts are lost on you.

IIRC, McCulloch is bringing charges against a metro policeman for felony assault - rapping a teenager on the hand with his extendable baton.

Of course it's only coincidence that the cop in this case is black and the "victim" is white. It's just McCulloch doing his job with includes prosecuting policemen when their actions are grossly negligent. Nothing to see here...move along.

(in case it's necessary)

It's clear he has two separate rules for prosecution: one for White cops and one for Black cops.

I mean, a Black cop rapping a White teen on the hand with an extendable baton surely is a far more heinous than lobbing off no less than twelve bullets at an unarmed Black teen and killing him (overkilling him?) with nine of them. Yep. What a fine prosecutor that McCulloch is, isn't he?

The man needs to be investigated by the DoJ, posthaste, before more innocent Black people are extrajudiciously murdered and more cops get away with it unscathed.

even though the Dixiecrat party no longer exists, Dixiecrats do.

Again, to assume because McCulloch has a (D) designation he couldn't be racist is naive, at best.

His history in prosecuting (defending) white police officers shooting unarmed black men is well known.

http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I don't think Reagan would be allowed in the TEA faction and he hated black people. Hated our guts.

I find it so fascinating that the only people in the world who think that white Democrats can't be racists are white Democrats.

How do you define "community?"

McCulloch has been the elected District Attorney of St. Louis County since 1991. He was reelected to the position in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, and most recently, November 2014. He apparently has trust of the people whom he actually represents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._McCulloch_%28prosecutor%29

The volume of the protests against him do not necessarily reflect his support among his constituency.

Although he is safely ensconced in office until 2018, I'm curious about his current approval rating among voters of St. Louis County in light of his apparent choices concerning the prosecution of Wilson. I have not read about any recent polling to indicate that the relevant voters were unhappy with his choices.

Lastly, there are clear canons of ethics and a body of law about when a prosecutor is required to remove himself from a case. I haven't seen anything that would actually mandate his withdrawal from the case, and it is rare for any prosecutor (or politician) to abdicate power unless mandated to do so.

the community of Ferguson is part of that community of which you speak, a community that is 67% African American, I would suggest the likelihood they support him is slim.

A person of integrity would have stepped aside without falling back on the law that doesn't require him to do so, he did not.

Given the racial strife his actions have inflamed, he is being excoriated nationally and it is well merited.

Ferguson is also only one town that makes up the larger St. Louis County, which includes the city proper. To the extent it matters, St. Louis County is about 70% white.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29189.html

My point was simply that it is not clear that McCulloch actually does not have the trust of the "community," because the term is so vague. Elections are as good a measure as any of public trust, and McCulloch ran unopposed this month, garnering a staggering 95+% of the vote, even while he was under criticism for his handling of the Wilson case. It could easily be argued that McCulloch has the clear trust of at least his constituents.

http://www.stlouisco.com/Portals/8/docs/document%20library/elections/eresults/el141104/el45.htm

Local politicians generally care most about their own electorate, not national feelings. I'm therefore curious if McCulloch's popularity has taken a demonstrable hit or improved as a result of his lawful tanking of the Wilson case. Either result would be most informative of the voters of St. Louis County.

of the matter, I am really not interested in debating side issues.

If St. Louis County is 70% white, then McCulloch can get elected over and over again, if he has the trust of the white community. Blacks and whites in this country perceive the police very differently in this country. Why? Because whites are treated differently by police, which is the gigantic point of this entire case, and the reason this case set off a reaction through black people throughout the country.

Whites don't get pulled over for simply driving while white.

Let's make this easy for you...

He lacks the trust of the Black community.....

Better???

just because he's a democrat. It is a very big tent these days.

for the scuffle at the car. That part of his story is fishy. He tried hard to make it sound like he didn't have other options, but I think he did, and that's why that part of his story is a bit sketchy. He doesn't even sound like he believes it when he recounts the incident.

A conviction would have been impossible, though. Once Brown entered a police car, no jury in the world will convict him of murder. The idea that Wilson pulled Brown into the cop car to shoot him is also not believable. The black witness who saw Brown charging Wilson would have been the nail in the coffin of a political theater trial.

Once Brown assaulted a police officer, it was over for getting a conviction.

... no threat to him or others.

That's the excessive force...

Wilson denied shooting at Brown from the back even though FPD offcials said he did

There is zero chance this would be a winnable case given all the evidence released.

Zero.

and as one who thinks that Wilson just got away with murder, I definitely agree with you.

Unfortunately, one of the issues involved in this tragic case is not only whether the case was winnable but also whether there would be the perception that, finally, a case that involved the shooting of an unarmed Black man would at least be treated like any other criminal case. On that point the DA has turned out to be an utterly incompetent failure.

That's my opinion and many of the reasons I feel this way have been debated extensively on this site. What I was hoping to see was a sense that this process would not follow the path of all too many unjustified shooting cases through the years involving people of color. That was my simple hope but alas, it was dashed once again.

The victim of the case was morphed in a "thug" and dehumanized. AGAIN. A predominantly White grand jury just couldn't bring themselves to bring an indictment. AGAIN. The families of the victims were marginalized and disrespected. AGAIN. None or only token attempts were made to reach out to the community of color and really understand their feelings and try to work through some of these issues. AGAIN. Obvious attempts were made to game the system in a way that many people of color fee always happens. AGAIN. I could go on and on....

What's interesting about a lot of people who are going on about the process, the rule of law and the justice system when it comes to this case never seem to speak to the fact that a significant portion of this country has absolutely no confidence in the very system that they are talking about. The problem is not whether the DA had a winnable case or not, it is the very real perception that he wouldn't have tried even if he had.

One last thing...people who try to understand our anger at these types of cases often fail to look at the flip side. It's not only that many of us feel that the system can never seem prosecute cops in these cases but that the very same system often seems to over backwards to imprison people of color using false information, coerced confessions and other misconduct, often promulgated by the very same DAs we are asked to now view objectively. Just this week, there were several stories about Black men being released from prison for crimes they were innocent of after spending DECADES in jail. Yet the cops and DAs who created those circumstances will never be held to task. They got to spend 40 years raising their families, sleeping in the own beds at night while the Black men they unjustly convicted rotted away in the penal system.

And you are also right that this case will be probably be resolved in a civil court like all the others which only further reinforces the feeling that when these things happen, dead Black men are simply an accounting error that can be rectified by a simple adjusting of the books.

I did see it as a positive sign when the person who murdered the black guy in his car for playing rap music was convicted of murder, but there is still a long way to go. The death penalty, for example, is applied in an appallingly racist manner, so much so that I find it mind-boggling that there are still DUers who support it.

Having said that, if this had been treated like "any other case", it would have bedn dropped without even going to the grand jury.

Given the long history of the killing of unarmed Black men, The Jordan Davis (and it's important to remember the names of these young men) case was not some watershed moment for me and most Black people. It was the justice system doing what it's SUPPOSED to do. Why do we need to crow about one case after centuries of legal inequality. Sort of like the Republican party getting all hot and bothered because they just let a Black and a Jew into their ranks.

Not true about any other case....If you know anything about police shooting of people of color, the cases tend to follow a particular path

1-Shooting is deemed justifiable. No further action sought
2-DA looks at the case. Determines no grounds to pursue GJ charges.
3-Pursues GJ but for whatever reason, no indictment is handed up.
4-Indictment brought (Extremely rare)-Trial is held (Often after a change of venue to more favorable climes) and no conviction made..... Diallo and the Rodney King case followed this path.

There's a body of evidence here that we can go back and look at and doing so doesn't put the justice system in a favorable light. So you'll forgive me if my life experiences say this guy was nothing but a hack who wasn't interested in justice but seemed to only view this case through his own worldview.

Hospital doctors have some sort of process called mortality and morbidity or something like that.

Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are traditional, recurring conferences held by medical services at academic medical centers, most large private medical and surgical practices, and other medical centers. They are usually peer reviews of mistakes occurring during the care of patients. The objectives of a well-run M&M conference are to learn from complications and errors, to modify behavior and judgment based on previous experiences, and to prevent repetition of errors leading to complications.[1] Conferences are non-punitive and focus on the goal of improved patient care. The proceedings are generally kept confidential by law.[2] M&M conferences occur with regular frequency, often weekly, biweekly or monthly, and highlight recent cases and identify areas of improvement for clinicians involved in the case. They are also important for identifying systems issues (e.g., outdated policies, changes in patient identification procedures, arithmetic errors, etc.) which affect patient care.[1][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbidity_and_mortality_conference

Seems to me that police officers need a similar process for situations in which maybe they could handle things better and certainly after any killing or causing of a serious injury to a suspect.

It certainly seems Wilson showed up acting like an unreasonable dick but even then I no idea exactly what happened, the facts seem to contradict themselves which wouldn't help where use of force is rarely, if ever (strangely, when it comes to shots fired. A beating is easier to prosecute against).

Grand juries are typically used for murder charges so there may not be anything unusual there, if he personally felt he didn't have a case. He couldn't get away with the political pressure so he had to try the grand jury.

When it comes to the grand jury, I have no problems with how he choose to present the case. I would like to see it more often.

Legal scholars praise Ferguson grand jury for fairness beyond the norm

Legal experts across the country agree that while the process that led to a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was unusual, it was not unfair. Rather if it was anything unusual, it was in its fairness and openness.

Lawyers and academics told The Washington Times that, despite their personal opinions on the case, which has sparked riots over police brutality, St. Louis county prosecutor Robert McCulloch sought unbiased justice in presenting the jury with every piece of evidence and then making that evidence public.

“It was the most thorough grand jury investigation that I’ve ever heard of,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School.

Media outlets and supporters of Mr. Brown have said that Mr. McCulloch’s prosecution was unusual because he did not go in with the goal of seeking an indictment in secret, as most prosecutors do.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/legal-scholars-praise-ferguson-grand-jury-fairness/#ixzz3KCTVWCJn
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

about grand juries in general and why this was better. How often does this happen -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html

One of the things that makes it atypical is usually everything is kept in the dark. Here, you can see for yourself where the jury went wrong.

Why did Regina Kelly do this?

When an issue is raised regarding the disclosure of grand jury information in an appeal from a conviction, the issue is plainly a matter of criminal law governed by the statutes and rules generally applicable to appeals in criminal cases. See e.g. Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769, 781-83 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Legate v. State, 52 S.W.3d 797, 803-04 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, pet. ref'd). The question presented here is whether such an issue becomes a civil law matter if it is pursued after a criminal prosecution has been dismissed.

Kelly contends that this proceeding is "civil in nature" because: (1) the San Antonio Court of Appeals has treated a similar proceeding in this fashion; (2) this proceeding did not arise during the pendency of a criminal prosecution; (3) this proceeding does not "concern the administration of penal justice;" (4) the State has not participated in this proceeding and only "private parties to underlying federal civil litigation" have appeared in opposition to her request for disclosure; and (5) she cannot obtain the relief sought via habeas corpus. Although we agree that some of these statements are true, we do not agree that they state a valid basis for concluding that a post-dismissal request for disclosure of grand jury proceedings under article 20.02 is a civil matter or that this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of such a request.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1577284/kelly-v-state/

Who is Regina Kelly?

Regina Kelly v. John Paschall, was filed on behalf of 15 African-American residents of Hearne who were indicted in November 2000 on drug charges after being rounded up in a series of unlawful paramilitary drug "sweeps." The case closely resembles the notorious 1999 drug bust scandal in nearby Tulia, where 45 people -- all but three of them African-American -- were arrested and indicted on bogus drug charges.

According to the ACLU's complaint, "for the past 15 years, based on the uncorroborated tales of informants, Task Force members annually raid the African American community in eastern Hearne to arrest the residents identified by the confidential informants, resulting in the arrest and harassment of innocent citizens without cause."

Of the ACLU clients named in today's complaint, one man was arrested at the funeral of his 18-month-old daughter and held for a month before charges were dropped. Others were able to show through time cards and witnesses that they were at work during the time they were accused of participating in drug deals.

"Cases like Hearne and Tulia begin to explain the troubling fact that America has more black men in prison than college," Boyd said. "The ACLU is calling for an end to racial profiling in drug arrests, both in Texas and throughout the nation."

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-charges-racial-discrimination-second-texas-drug-bust-scandal

That should as well as anything highlight the problems with the grand juries as they're typically used.

and instead presented the evidence a defense attorney would present at trial.

The massively wrong assumption you are making is that the Grand Jury saw everything. They didn't. They still saw what the prosecutor gave them. And they still had the DA calling witnesses "not credible" when they disagreed with Wilson and the physical evidence, but the utterly fucking insane journal that just happened to match Wilson's story was labeled "credible" by the DA.

This was by no means fair, and the fact that you had to dig up a right-wing joke of a newspaper to agree with you should have been an indication that there may be something to reconsider.

"Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity all agree with me, so I must be right!!"

Probably in every other case where they indict African-Americans, in secret, based on a questionable evidence they support that as well but when it comes to Wilson, they do a 180 on grand juries.

Scalia agrees with you -- http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

It isn't hard to find articles stating that it was fair which the unfairness of it is the problem with grand juries in the first place.

So say what you say is true, they could have done the same thing but kept everything a secret like pretty much all grand juries. Instead - you can judge for yourself which is something you can't say about other grand juries -- http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

For example I came across this story -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/25/the-michael-brown-grand-jury-process-was-fair/

Probably a right winger but I don't care, I have my own reasons for feeling the way I do about grand juries.

The point of a grand jury is to judge if there's any reason to go to trial. So the rules explicitly are set in the prosecutor's favor. If he can't win with everything going his way, then there should not be a trial.

At trial, that reverses. Theoretically, the defense has the advantage at trial. Reality is often different. For example, lousy or overworked public defenders.

If you want grand juries to actually try the case, fine. But then you need a representative from both sides. And a judge. And you've now removed the point of trials - the grand jury is doing the exact same thing as a trial.

Of all things the framers intended, grand jury was meant to be a check against over-zealous prosecutors, instead prosecutors control the process. Trying the case is not my argument, reviewing the available evidence to determine whether there is probable cause for an indictment. Which is a very low standard. Grand juries rarely indict police officers so I'm not sure an alternative approach would have yielded different results.

For example, Coleman Brackney, a Bella Vista, Oklahoma, police officer who was convicted of misdemeanor negligent homicide in 2010 after shooting an unarmed teen to death while in custody in his cruiser, went on to rejoin the police and was recently appointed chief of police in Sulphur Springs, Oklahoma.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/ferguson-police-misconductdarrenwilsongrandjury.html

If all you need is probable cause and you bring the entire case, a grand jury that knows what they're should doing should be able to find it if it exists. At-the-same time grand juries allow evidence that normally wouldn't be permitted in a trial so in theory there is more available evidence. He tasked two lawyers under him to release & present evidence as it comes in.

Yes, prosecutors easily get indictments via grand juries. But if you take them away, there is absolutely no check against the DA. Instead of having to present a case, he can just file charges against anyone. Don't even have to bother with details like "was the accused in the state at the time?".

Either way, whether one wants to present charges or not that affects how it is presented to the grand jury.

When the Tony Stewart grand jury came up the only information that came out was the prosecutor himself who said Kevin Ward's THC levels were high to cause "impairment" but wouldn't elaborate how much was in there. Tells you he probably didn't want to charge Tony Stewart.

In most places prosecutors don't need a grand jury to file charges, they choose them because they're so prosecutor friendly. Something like .996% return indictments.

procedures in our law. No system will be perfect, but at least our system gives each side the opportunity to tell its story and tear down the other side's story. The grand jury decision means that there was no real cross-examination, no real adversarial airing of the facts. It's a shame for everyone involved.

and of course, not all legal scholars agree with this rw rag's assessment.

but the funny thing is I have had problems with grand juries for a very long time, now I find it ironic the grand jury wasn't used the typical unfair way. My biggest problem is the secrecy which like the scholars mentioned in the link, the transparency is unlike I ever seen.

You know bashing grand juries and the slam duck process for prosecutors (judges can't even show up) would have been popular here at any other time, now someone goes above and beyond especially in the transparency department. The irony of the criticisms 'no one there to cross examine opposite the prosecutor'.

Me, I understand the concept of probable cause very well. If the grand jury can't find probable cause that exists relevant to the statues in all that evidence presented the fault lies with the grand jury(rules for jury intruction, if they exist, differ from real trials). I don't care how well overwhelming it is, I could locate probable cause.

I never thought I'd see a prosecutor criticized for using the grand jury in this way.

and you are shocked that people have a problem with that?

Normally the process is inherently unfair for the defendant. I'd favor this sort of transparent selection of evidence/presentation over cherry picked evidence any day of the week.

I'm shocked at the well documented criticisms with the grand jury being a rubber stamp for the prosecutor, secrecy, stacked deck, etc but it is a problem when a prosecutor doesn't cherry pick.

Either way, it would be hard to argue evidence that would have indicted Wilson was withhold from the grand jury.

'completely transparent' GJ presentation for cases where the defendants are black and the victims are white. In fact, this 'completely transparent' presentation is so unorthodox that various commentators have called it a 'farce.'

Every criminal defense attorney now in St. Louis County should demand that all evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, be placed before a grand jury before their client face indictment or trial on felony charges. We'll see how long that copologist McCulloch maintains his faux commitment to 'complete transparency'.

He should but there was intense pressure that he handle the case in the right way which is probably the biggest reason for the unprecedented transparency. He would likely face criticism if was withholding key evidence that would impact the grand juries decision one way or the other. I think a lot of choice were damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I would too as an defense attorney, most of the critiques of the grand jury process come from defense attorneys but it is difficult to get the courts to agree, including the link I posted somewhere on this thread where the courts ruled against allowing the defendant to even see the grand jury evidence that led to her unjust indictment.

I agree, he should as well as other prosecutors should opt for this approach more often.

assistant prosecutor made. She did not shepardize the case law she presented to the grand jury. The law she presented to the grand jury considering the authority of a police officer to shoot a suspect that was running away had been overruled by the US Supreme Court. Some ways into the trial, apparently, the assistant prosecutor advised the jury to fold the paper with the overruled law on it and forget it. She handed out a new version of the law. But really, that grand jury should have been dismissed at that moment.

Shepardizing case law is Law School 101. If a judge or an opposing attorney had been there, that jury might even have been dismissed but most likely the correction would have been made more effectively. Besides, in the period before the trial, the attorneys submit proposed jury instructions to the judge and the attorneys and the judge argue and discuss and decide what the actual instructions will be. Unfortunately, the authority that Wilson had to continue shooting at Brown when Brown was fleeing might have been an important issue in the case.

So McCulloch and his staff made a huge error in their presentation of their case.

You really should watch the Lawrence O'Donnell program on that.

That's not saying that Wilson would have been convicted in a trial. But the grand jury should maybe have been dismissed. And I think a trial would have been important for Wilson and everyone else in this case.

that said the prosecuters were wrong asking jurors to disregard the state law because Garner V Tennessee was the constitutional standard for civil suits. You could make a good case why he is wrong but what led him to say that?

Saying he is wrong, I agree it is mistake to put it out there but later asking to disregard (only one subsection so the law and (B) and (C) parts still should have been presented.

I don't everything there is to know about grand juries but I do know the rules are different, defense attorneys are not allowed even when their client shows up to testify. Judges aren't allowed to be there. How would a grand jury be dismissed? Jury instructions are different than trials but I'm not sure what the requirements are for jury instructions. However, grand juries are allowed to watch shows like Lawrence O'Donnell, search the internet for information, all sorts of things which would normally lead a trial jury to be dismissed.

The best I can find about grand jury dismissals is when it comes to indictments if the prosecutor didn't present exculpatory evidence which is required in states that require it. Missouri is Not one of those states.

The problem is that it was done differently in this case than every other case. If he cherry picks to get an indictment, which is standard, then he should do it when a cop is the defendant too. He should do it the same for a cop as for anyone else. The cop shouldn't get special treatment.

It's ridiculous to say you prefer it this way, because it that he has a policy and does it this way, it is that he did it just this time. The next time he wants an indictment, he'll cherry pick the evidence again, because that's how it's done. It isn't a trial, it's just an attempt to show you have enough info to take it to trial.

Essentially the DA gets what they want and it is foolish to assume they actually want a conviction in this kind of scenario.

He neither wanted to be the one to drop charges nor go to trial.

The nature of the complaint is consistent the desired outcome of the string holder is all that is different here.

What was your point?

Whether a prosecutor wants charges or not effects how he/she brings to a grand jury.

My point is the most common complaint about grand juries at least what a prosecutor will tell you they shows only the evidence that helps the prosecutor, not the exculpatory evidence. This prosecutor did both which makes the criticism unusual.

As far as to the first point, I could understand the criticism better from the puppet standpoint if the prosecutor without the evidence that gives the grand jury probably cause to move forward with the indictment. I haven't got around to read the transcripts but I understand many people feel like the prosecutor treating Wilson with kid gloves when he was on the stand. On the other hand, if he really wanted to he wouldn't have let Dorian Wilson or the Brown family forensics expert testify which we can view the transcripts that were released to the public which a common complaint about the grand juries is the secret proceedings with no transparency which this one is different.

If he did handle this prosecution by withholding a key piece of evidence, one side or the other would be screaming bloody murder (though a completely secret transparency would have limited that -- though their would be conspiracy theories up the wazoo) so I understanding the public pressure led to this unusual step to present every evidence (or most of it) and show the public the transcripts, documents, and audio.

there is no judge to determine whether that evidence is admissible under the Rules of Evidence and no opposing attorney to cross-examine witnesses and show the flaws in the prosecutor's case.

The grand jury process should be kept secret. It is not an adversarial hearing. It may consider evidence that would normally be considered inadmissible.

It is owned by Sun Myung Moon, a religious nutcase.

Daaaaammmmnnnnn!

The Washington Times is, well, the Washington Times. Can't help itself. It's just kind of a sad case. It has a point of view that is not shared by most DUers. There are better sources for stories that have merit.

on DU. I do not want to hurt your feelings, but in the future, find your story in some other source. The Washington Times is just not reliable. Do you have another source?

this sort of thing to be the norm for grand jury proceedings. why wouldn't a prosecutor handle *every* case like that?

most grand jury proceedings are completely one-sided. the prosecutor presents their base, there is no defense, and the job of the grand jury is to determine if there's enough there to go to trial, to force the accused to mount a defense. the whole idea of the grand jury/indictment process is to determine if the accused should even be bothered to with a trial.

the grand jury is not, and was never intended to be, a mini-trial in an effort to see if a real trial would be winnable. it's only to determine if the prosecution has a case that could win *in the absence of any defense*.


the normal procedure, if the prosecution thinks the case is not winnable, is simply not to even bother the grand jury with it.


far, far more likely is that the prosecutor didn't want to alienate the police. remember, prosecutors and the police are natural allies. a prosecutor very much needs active support from the police on a daily basis in order to accomplish just about anything. it's not at all surprising that a prosecutor would protect the police. that's an institutional problem and completely explains how he could be "cop-loving" yet "weirdly" a democrat.

The prosecutor has to work with the police. Has to maintain a positive channel with law enforcement. The OP bringing up the DA's political affiliation is strange, but I guess that works on some people. I guess he doesn't know about Dixiecrats. Evidently we still have some in the party. Which is not a surprise.

for all we know he votes straight republican every election, but otherwise supports the people he thinks will give him the best job.

Normally, if a witness makes a mistake or says something that one of the attorneys needs to correct or question, then the witness's mistake can be gently corrected. It may hurt the credibility of the witness, but that may be better than allowing an obvious mistake, maybe caused by nervousness or something, to stand.

So the grand jury transcript may include mistakes in testimony and certainly lots of evidence that should not be before a jury considering an actual case.

The release of the transcripts was not such a good thing in my opinion. There may be a lot of "evidence" in there that would not have been admitted at a hearing.

The witnesses could not have their own attorneys present. That's really a bad thing if the witnesses' testimony is then released for public view.

The process was adjusted for him by the prosecutors. That is undeniable.

Was there probable cause to indict? Absolutely, but the prosecutors put on the trial, one sided, behind closed doors, without the rules of evidence and benefit of public scrutiny that comes with a trial.

You cannot say this was a fair or normal process.

So the FACT that Wilson lied is not an issue? The fact that the DA was taking his version of events as the true story is not an issue?

What Darren Wilson claimed is IMPOSSIBLE. Either that, or Mike Brown is truly inhuman. Because he is the only person who has ever lived on this planet, who, while running and being shot at, turned and decided to run 150 FEET back towards the gun. Use your brain for a second. He was running, shots fired that missed, and so he turned and was going to run half of a football field, not stopping even when he was hit multiple times, until he was killed. Pretending to have a gun in his waistband that he didn't have so keeping his hand in his shorts as he ran, a completely unnatural posture and would slow someone down considerably. The boy was running into bullets because he was so mad the cop told him to walk on the sidewalk.

That is the story that the prosecutor allowed the jury to hear and aided them to believe. That was the story that was not questioned or cross-examined. It was the eye witnesses that were cross-examined. The grand jury was not the place to put those witnesses on trial, and it sure as shit isn't the job of the prosecutor to kill his own case.

Your post shows no logic whatsoever. But it does have a really loud dog whistle and they all came running didn't they.

Notice that too did you?

Under the guise of law and order and being "good Democrats." I'm actually quite aghast at how many are showing themselves. Some unwitting; they must have just been steeped in it growing up and so it is part of the fabric of their thought. It's making my head explode.

N/t

Unlike almost every other case presented to him, this one was different. It was a cop and not just some throw away civilian. He has to keep a positive rapport with cops. He even went so far as to repeat a lie to the GJ in order to not seek an indictment.

The DA did not want to indict Wilson, so he did not and made sure the GJ went along with what he wanted them to do.

Not that this was a surprise to anyone here on DU.

the homicide of Michael Brown?

I really don't give a shit what that smug copologist McCulloch thought he could win or not win.

the Grand Jury decided.

I find your 'footsie' a bit tiresome, but maybe I'm misinterpreting your point.

The eyewitness accounts are all over the map, so how can you possibly know what the truth is?

google him and you will see his video. He is naitonally recognized as one of the best in the country. He analyzed each shot, their order, and trajectory and tells us exactly what happened.

His real motive was to pimp his books and institute.

facts and cross-examine witnesses for the opposing side. You follow the rules of evidence. You agree on jury instructions before the trial and the instructions about what law applies to the facts is agreed upon before trial (preventing an assistant prosecutor from presenting overruled case law to the jury which is what happened in the grand jury hearing in this case) or argued at trial.

Lots of ways to "know."

And when a jury decides the case, then that is the verdict barring an appeal or the discovery of new facts that result in a rehearing under limited circumstances.

We have an excellent system with great procedures for maximizing certainty although certainty in the law and fairness in the law are rarely perfect even in our system.

1. That being a democrat somehow assures the quality of one's character. The Third Way disproves this, assholes come in all stripes.

2. That "unwinnable" cases are not worth pursuing. We hear this all the time in reference to why BushCo shouldn't have been prosecuted for warcrimes, and for why we shouldn't run democrats who are "too far left to win". Frankly, I find these rationales disgusting.

Either to the grand jury or at trial.

I wonder why?

the fix was in from the start.

have you paid ANY ATTENTION to this case?

The danger of self-incrimination is great in a situation like that.

It suggests to me that Wilson and his attorneys felt pretty secure about the prosecutors.
A little mistake or just not being liked by members of the grand jury?

And then the testimony has been published?

Really strange. And in fact there are problems with the testimony.

Also, Wilson's testimony was and rightfully was self-serving. The whole thing was a mess.

like that Brown was shot in the back, or while trying to surrender, and this story was backed up by the forensics, this would have been an extremely winnable case, cop or no cop.

have all of the witnesses telling consistent stories?

You were not paying attention...this prosecutors dad was murdered by a Black man and he was a policeman. Also he has never tried a cop for excessive force...and he absolutely lied during the grand jury proceedings...he was Wilson's defense attorney in fact...then he caps it off by releasing the verdict after dark...he is so despicable words fail me... I have heard his conduct was so bad it may in fact be illegal and he may face disbarment or even jail...hope so. Why would you support what is in effect murder by cop...and I live in Ohio and am shocked by the conduct of the Cleveland cops.

Yeah, I think it was: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025421579#post23

had his arms up (i.e. his hands up) while he was shot. The 2 bullets fired into his arms were fired upwards.

to read this on DU but it hurts just the same.

How can you excuse this DA turned defense attorney for a cold blooded killer cop? I hope the DOJ nails Wilson.

If a verdict can be appealed because of poor representation by the defense, why can't a GJ decision to not indict be appealed?

Please dispense with its use.

On top of automatically siding with cops against citizens.

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025874651

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025875750

by only presenting certain witnesses and being selective with the forensics. Obviously this frustrates those who just wanted an indictment regardless of an inevitable acquittal at trial (where all of the witnesses would be presented, along with all of the forensics).

McCulloch did NOT want that.

Why is do you think that is?

statements I've ever read.

Since you are so absolutely, positively, without so much as an inkling of a doubt SURE that NO jury would find him guilty...

I Sir, believe you have found a new career that will make you one of the richest men in the world. Every law firm...every lawyer....every judge....every prosecuter in the United States of American (maybe the whole world) will pay you immense sums for your talent of being able to predict any & all trials and jurists and whether they will convict or not.

I've recently been subpoenaed as a witness in a Federal case that is to be tried in a few weeks. Could I give you the name and number of the Federal Judge to call, so you can help save money so I don't have to go and testify?

WOW...just wow

See my post below on why I think that. Trials serve a social purpose. If a defendant in a case that is as controversial as this is exonerated, that is good. If a prosecutor does not get a conviction but the facts are clearly not warranting a conviction, that is also a good thing in a case with this notoriety. It isn't just about winning or losing. It is about a public trial. At trial, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt. The verdict of guilty must be beyond reasonable doubt.

But as we see from the comments on DU and from the prosecutor's admission that there is contradictory testimony, we do not have a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And we do not have an exoneration. The case is in many people's minds in a kind of limbo. There is a lot of distrust. There is a lot of confusion and anger. A conviction would have been difficult to get, gut a decision by a jury after an adversarial trial would have been very valuable no matter the result.

There are plenty of racist Democrats in MO. Not even closet racists. I was on the house floor as one of the strongest members of the black caucus used her floor time to passionately oppose medicaid cuts. There were Democratic representatives sitting on the side gallery laughing at her.

If so, are you a litigator?

I would like to know why Wilson backed up his car right next to Johnson and Brown and then knowing that the two young men were standing right next to where he had backed up his car, tried to open the door because at that point Johnson testified that Wilson hit Brown with the car door.

That act escalated a nasty but not serious encounter into a test of wills, of aggression.

That act might betray the mental state of Wilson at the time he met the two young men.

Questioning and focusing more on the very beginning of Wilson's interaction with Brown after Wilson backed up his car might throw a different light on his intent at that time. Combined with the number of shots Wilson fired and the trajectories of the bullets, who knows?

It is very hard to win a case. It is not hard to get an indictment. There are reasons for our adversarial system of litigation and justice. They include fairness, airing facts and reaching clarity, allowing the parties' cases to be heard, airing conflicts and resentments in public rather than letting them smolder and then flame again. Those are just a few reasons why a trial with opposing attorneys each fighting for his or her client are not only important for the parties concerned but also for our society.

It is very difficult to get a conviction of a police officer. But it is, in my opinion, very important that we devise a process through which police officers answer in public to the public when their conduct appears to reveal a lack of self-control.

We cannot continue to have a society in which police officers are given a license to be violent and cruel. We need to encourage police officers to try when possible to bring peace to violent, angry situations.

I don't know, but I think we ought to try to find out, maybe through psychological research, what the effect of the rare instances of police brutality that are well publicized have on the conduct of the officers and on the conduct of the public, especially the members of the public who have been convicted of crimes or who may be living in areas that have a lot of crime.

I just think we can do better. I also think that our society would have gained a great deal had Wilson been tried whether or not Wilson was found to be innocent (a likely outcome).

No matter what, Wilson has to live with the facts of that brutal killing. He has to live with the knowledge of his own inadequacy in a situation in which he probably could have reduced or even avoided such a violent outcome. After all, as it turns out, Brown was not armed. He was a big guy, but he was not armed. Wilson will have to live with the fact that he got scared and shot an unarmed man. He, a police officer, entrusted with the license to kill will never know whether he killed without cause.

Ten years from now, he may wish he had gone through a trial and gotten a verdict of innocence because without that he lives in social notoriety and uncertainty.

Lawyers are prone to counting their wins and losses. The lawyer's win or loss is not always the point.

My former bro-in-law was a criminal defense lawyer and he was well aware of his batting average.

If the DA knew he had an high probability of loosing a high profile trial, the path he chose makes perfect sense.

His future as a DA is another matter.

as the defense demolishes all of their witnesses.

What makes it flawed is that the situation you describe, where the Grand Jury is presented only cherry picked evidence happens every single day. Grand Juries don't convict, and as such the Defense Attorney has no right to present any evidence. It is the Prosecutor, and only the Prosecutor, who presents that kind of cherry picked evidence every day. It is the trial in which the defense attorney gets to present the other side of the story, to challenge the evidence.

The question asked of the Grand Jury is supposed to be simple. Is there enough evidence to go to trial on this. The question asked was did he do this now that you've looked at all the evidence. For me and thee, the first question is the only one asked. For cops, the latter question is asked and this is the claim of fairness.

McCulloch presented the evidence in a way that pretty much guaranteed that the grand jury would not end up with an indictment against Wilson. I honestly think he was in it to protest his own ass and used the grand jury as patsies to do his dirty work (that is make sure no indictment would occur).

Whether the case was winnable or not, Michael Brown and his family deserved their day in court.

The sad thing is that the assassinations will continue to happen over and over again, it won't be just Michael Brown in Ferguson or Trayvon Martin in Sanford.

Prosecutors who only prosecute cases they are sure to win are political posers who want to display high conviction stats at election time.

A case of this magnitude should be prosecuted despite the Prosecutor's political ambitions. McCulloch was repeatedly asked to recuse himself and refused to do so.


McCulloch had no intention of letting this case go to trial, due solely to his own personal feelings. He's a hack that has repeatedly failed to prosecute dirty cops. He sent it to the GJ and did his absolute best to convince them to squelch the case so he couldn't be held politically culpable of another botched trial of a killer cop. You clearly fail to understand how much influence the Prosecutor has over Grand Juries, how genuinely conservative the "community leaders" chosen for Grand Jury duty are, and how unlikely they are to change a system of patron-ism and nepotism.

Had the GJ not played along, I believe he would have purposely thrown the case.

He is indeed a cop-loving racist and I believe you're intentionally defending his actions by referring to political excuses. What does that make you?

Here's an alert for you: many of us long-standing Democrat voters realize that not every politico that hangs his White Stetson on a Democrat peg is a champion of Justice for the People. St. Louis, despite the fact that racism clearly exists, is a union city and Democrat/progressive turn-out is the usual rather than the exception. Since he wanted this powerful position he ran with the party that would secure him the most votes.

You're backing the wrong side of this issue. It seems you have quite a reputation for doing so. So much so that many of us who read your posts understand that the direct opposite of your advice is the most prudent progressive course.

You should do some research on how Grand Juries are supposed to operate. Seriously. You are very uninformed.

It should have been given to a jury to decide. I think they feared that - while there is conflicting testimony, it is more on the scene than the Zimmerman case, so a conviction was quite possible here.

to return an indictment is ok with you? So just fold up the justice system and go home.

So the correct legal standard would have been very fresh in their minds when they started deliberations.

The ADA assigned to the Grand Jury case gave the jurors a statute that had been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985, she gave this to the jurors BEFORE wilson testified. This unconstitutional statute allowed police officers to shoot suspects if they were fleeing.
She did NOT correct her 'mistake' until the jury were nearing deliberation and did not explain what the change was at all. She did say, some of the original statute was still good and left it at that. When a juror asked if the US Supreme Court overruled Missouri statutes and the answer given was "Don't worry about that now".

You should watch Lawrence O'Donnell's rewrite segment from Wednesday night, it is clear there was NO clarification provided, quite the opposite.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word

is that there would have been no conviction had it gone to trial. Not because of the comments of the OP but because this DA would have thrown the prosecution just the way he did the Grand jury presentation. The Ferguson Community knew McCulloch's record only too well and begged my spineless governor to replace him. He let him stay and the resulting no true bill was as provocative and deliberate as allowing Mike Brown's body to lie in the street for 4 hours. You reap what you sew. The Governor, prosecutor and police department's collective decisions to rally around their own are both apparent and destructive.And all of us are the worse off for it but none more so than the Brown family.

Just present the prevaricating and lying witnesses and sit back and watch the defense tear them apart. It would have been ugly.

calling witnesses liars and prevaricators.

There were 16 witnesses that said that Brown's hands were in the air. Which ones of those are liars?

Rather than paint with the broad brush as you did in the OP calling unspecified witnesses liars and prevaricators, do you believe that Johnson or the white worker lied and/or prevaricated and if so, in what way?
BTW your second example of a liar is the witness who most closely testified in conformity to Wilson's story. I am pleased to see you call her out but wonder what that does to your defense of McCulloch.