D-Day for Michael Brown Grand Jury

[TGBTG]

Why was the prosecutor attempting to stay neutral? That's not his job. The job of a prosecutor is to create a narrative that would lead to indictment.

Presenting "all the evidence" to the grand jury and then having the grand jury make a decision is not how it is normally done. The problem with this situation is that the prosecutor decided not to do what is NORMALLY done.

If the prosecutor did what he's supposed to do and the case ended up in a trial, then at least, there would be an opportunity for cross examination and for both sides of the story to be presented. And then, a jury can decide the verdict.

Why did the prosecutor not do what is normally done???

Of course, this by no means excuses the looting and all, but as far as the process was involved, it was botched against the deceased dude.

Granted, the verdict might have still gone the way of officer Wilson if it ended up in a trial court, the prosecutor should still have done what is NORMALLY done.

That's where my grievance is with the process...

I don't think the justice system in America is fixed against african americans, but the way the prosecutor handled this case further substantiates the fact that there is a possibility the system in Ferguson, MO is biased against the african american community.

At the end of the day, the prosecutor did not do his job.

[n david]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Why was the prosecutor attempting to stay neutral? That's not his job. The job of a prosecutor is to create a narrative that would lead to indictment.

Presenting "all the evidence" to the grand jury and then having the grand jury make a decision is not how it is normally done. The problem with this situation is that the prosecutor decided not to do what is NORMALLY done.

If the prosecutor did what he's supposed to do and the case ended up in a trial, then at least, there would be an opportunity for cross examination and for both sides of the story to be presented. And then, a jury can decide the verdict.

Why did the prosecutor not do what is normally done???

Of course, this by no means excuses the looting and all, but as far as the process was involved, it was botched against the deceased dude.

Granted, the verdict might have still gone the way of officer Wilson if it ended up in a trial court, the prosecutor should still have done what is NORMALLY done.

That's where my grievance is with the process...

I don't think the justice system in America is fixed against african americans, but the process that occurred in this case just buttresses the already soured relations between the african american community and the police in Ferguson, MO.

The prosecutor did not do his job

I was waiting for someone to post about this.

Yesterday I watched one of the Brown's attorneys and had to laugh when he started complaining that the Prosecutor gave too much evidence to the grand jury.

Look, the Prosecutor was in a no-win situation. Can you imagine if the Prosecutor would have selected which evidence to use and which not to use. Crump and his minions would have complained about that!

I watched/heard a few of these talking head legal analysts, on CNN and one covering the Jodi Arias case here locally. They said about the same thing, this was the best thing for the Prosecutor to do. Keep his hands clean from selecting evidence to present and just give the Grand Jury everything; so that way no one can accuse him of prejudice later.

The Prosecutor did do his job. He did select which evidence to present and felt it was best to present everything.

What else will Brown's supporters complain about next? smh

[TGBTG]

How could the Prosecutor say "some of the witnesses were lying" and yet not charge the witnesses with perjury??

What kind of prosecutor does that?

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by n david

I was waiting for someone to post about this.

Yesterday I watched one of the Brown's attorneys and had to laugh when he started complaining that the Prosecutor gave too much evidence to the grand jury.

Look, the Prosecutor was in a no-win situation. Can you imagine if the Prosecutor would have selected which evidence to use and which not to use. Crump and his minions would have complained about that!

I watched/heard a few of these talking head legal analysts, on CNN and one covering the Jodi Arias case here locally. They said about the same thing, this was the best thing for the Prosecutor to do. Keep his hands clean from selecting evidence to present and just give the Grand Jury everything; so that way no one can accuse him of prejudice later.

The Prosecutor did do his job. He did select which evidence to present and felt it was best to present everything.

What else will Brown's supporters complain about next? smh

It's not about whether he presented too much or not. it's about how he presents it, his disposition towards the case.

I never said I was a Brown supporter (you assumed that). Matter of fact, in my earlier post, I said, the verdict would have most likely gone in favor of the officer if it went to trial.

[n david]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Why was the prosecutor attempting to stay neutral? That's not his job. The job of a prosecutor is to create a narrative that would lead to indictment.

I'm sure after seeing the evidence he knew there was no way he could "create a narrative" without completely fabricating evidence. So the best thing to do is present the evidence as a whole and let the Grand Jury see whether or not

There are people who agree with McCulloch's decision.

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.

Legal scholars say that Mr. McCulloch’s decision to release the evidence presented to the grand jury for public scrutiny was also unprecedented, since grand-jury hearings are usually shrouded in secrecy, both while going on and after the fact.

“Usually you don’t hear what evidence they considered,” Mr. Saltzburg said. “I give the prosecutor top marks in terms of transparency and accountability.”

Source Link

[n david]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It's not about whether he presented too much or not. it's about how he presents it, his disposition towards the case.

I never said I was a Brown supporter (you assumed that). Matter of fact, in my earlier post, I said, the verdict would have most likely gone in favor of the officer if it went to trial.

Apologies. I didn't mean to suggest your were a Brown supporter. I should have referenced back to earlier in my post when I mentioned the lawyers complaining about the process.

[n david]

Something else I read is that most prosecutors will not push hard for a Grand Jury indictment if they don't believe they can meet the strict "beyond reasonable doubt" standards of a full trial. In Grand Jury cases, prosecutors can arrange/suppress evidence to get an indictment since the defendant or attorneys are unable to present any defense. However, if the Prosecutor does that, he has to know there's a high probability he can win in trial.

This could also be why he didn't create a narrative and hard sell an indictment. He would have lost in trial. Wilson's defense attorney's would have wiped the floor with most of these witnesses.

Most Prosecutors don't want to go to trial if they can't win.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by n david

Something else I read is that most prosecutors will not push hard for a Grand Jury indictment if they don't believe they can meet the strict "beyond reasonable doubt" standards of a full trial. In Grand Jury cases, prosecutors can arrange/suppress evidence to get an indictment since the defendant or attorneys are unable to present any defense. However, if the Prosecutor does that, he has to know there's a high probability he can win in trial.

This could also be why he didn't create a narrative and hard sell an indictment. He would have lost in trial. Wilson's defense attorney's would have wiped the floor with most of these witnesses.

Most Prosecutors don't want to go to trial if they can't win.

That is a reasonable argument. In this case, however, the prosecutor by his account during that release speech on Monday night already had his mind made up. He was more like a defense attorney..lol

Seriously, the dead guy's body was left on the street for more than 3 hours. Bro, How insane is that? That seriously reeks...That might be even enough.

I mean, all they were looking for "probable cause" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

At least, they should have indicted him based upon probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. And then let the case go to court. It really stinks.

As for the forensics, it can be interpreted in the different ways depending on what side you're on . So again, if the prosecutor was really interested in charging the officer, he could have done a far better job than just presenting evidence to the GJ.

[n david]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

That is a reasonable argument. In this case, however, the prosecutor by his account during that release speech on Monday night already had his mind made up. He was more like a defense attorney..lol

Seriously, the dead guy's body was left on the street for more than 3 hours. Bro, How insane is that? That seriously reeks...That might be even enough.

I mean, all they were looking for "probable cause" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

At least, they should have indicted him based upon probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. And then let the case go to court. It really stinks.

As for the forensics, it can be interpreted in the different ways depending on what side you're on . So again, if the prosecutor was really interested in charging the officer, he could have done a far better job than just presenting evidence to the GJ.

I agree that leaving MB on the ground for 4 and 1/2 hours was awful and inhumane. No parents deserve being forced to stand by while their teenager is lying in a pool of blood in the middle of the street. And what's worse is, from what I read/heard, his body was uncovered for most of that time. They left him lie in the street like roadkill.

Again, with the indictment, he likely could have arranged enough evidence to meet the Grand Jury standard of probable cause, but from the evidence which was released and is viewable on CNN -- there's no way he would have met the trial standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The defense would have made the witnesses a laughingstock, and likely even perjured several of them.

This whole thing is sad. No parent should have to bury their child. Then again, when a kid that big comes after a cop and ignores the danger, there will be consequences.

There is one thing with which I agree with Brown's lawyers -- it should be a requirement for an LEO to have a body camera.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Why was the prosecutor attempting to stay neutral? That's not his job. The job of a prosecutor is to create a narrative that would lead to indictment.

Presenting "all the evidence" to the grand jury and then having the grand jury make a decision is not how it is normally done. The problem with this situation is that the prosecutor decided not to do what is NORMALLY done.

If the prosecutor did what he's supposed to do and the case ended up in a trial, then at least, there would be an opportunity for cross examination and for both sides of the story to be presented. And then, a jury can decide the verdict.

Why did the prosecutor not do what is normally done???

Of course, this by no means excuses the looting and all, but as far as the process was involved, it was botched against the deceased dude.

Granted, the verdict might have still gone the way of officer Wilson if it ended up in a trial court, the prosecutor should still have done what is NORMALLY done.

That's where my grievance is with the process...

I don't think the justice system in America is fixed against african americans, but the way the prosecutor handled this case further substantiates the fact that there is a possibility the system in Ferguson, MO is biased against the african american community.

At the end of the day, the prosecutor did not do his job.

He did not believe the evidence pointed to guilt but he saw the anger of the Community and rather than declining to prosecute left it up to someone else

I heard some Legal experts on CNN claim that sometimes, as prosecutors, they did not KNOW if they had a case or not and would present all the evidence to a Grand Jury to see what they came up with

Further more, what some were expecting the Prosecutor to do was HIDE a lot of evidence and only present unfavorable evidence towards Wilson.

That's not justice. That's vigilante justice. You might as well change the system to Guilty till proven innocent (which will never happen if we allow the public emotions to be the jury)