Riots and related excitement aside. Points were made and I have pondered this since September.
Why such a long grand jury. Most grand juries rubber stamp prosecutions. Does this mean we’ll see such due diligence afforded to all citizens?
So next time a thug like Michael brown is managed to kill the officer, and assuming he isn’t killed in the arrest process, we can expect a long and thorough grand jury that might spare the taxpayer a long and expensive jury trial?
I can see why people might think the deck is stacked against them.
Seems pretty simple to me. It was obvious that this case was a sensitive one and they wanted to show that they were taking it seriously. In all honesty, the outcome would have been the same if they had returned it after two days, two weeks or two years, or allowed it to go to trial where he would have been found innocent.
Some people simply had their minds made up that he was shot while trying to surrender. No amount of facts or testimony would change their opinion because it isn’t based in the facts of the case.
Seems pretty simple to me. It was obvious that this case was a sensitive one and they wanted to show that they were taking it seriously. In all honesty, the outcome would have been the same if they had returned it after two days, two weeks or two years, or allowed it to go to trial where he would have been found innocent.
Some people simply had their minds made up that he was shot while trying to surrender. No amount of facts or testimony would change their opinion because it isn’t based in the facts of the case.
I don’t disagree with the decision. I just have always felt grand juries are more of a formality. Yet here it ended the process as it should have. I just am not seeing consistency.
Theory. Same instance, no cop, it would have gone to trial if it went to a grand jury. And the decision would have been made in short order.
Why such a long grand jury. Most grand juries rubber stamp prosecutions. Does this mean we’ll see such due diligence afforded to all citizens?
I can tell you from experience that is not always true. There are a “easy” grand juries and “difficult” grand juries. I have said this before: A prosecutor should have a conviction rate of 90% or more b/c the prosecutor controls which cases go to trial. So, you pick and choose which ones are strong and should be slam dunks. But, sometimes, on serious crimes, you have to go to trial even if the case is not as strong as you hope. Then you have cases like this, where you may have to go to a grand jury b/c the public demands it (or b/c the prosecutor’s office wants a cya). Not every grand jury is easy. I had a complex drug conspiracy case that lasted forever.
I don’t disagree with the decision. I just have always felt grand juries are more of a formality. Yet here it ended the process as it should have. I just am not seeing consistency.
Are you arguing for consistency in process, absent of consistency in outcome? One without the other is entirely pointless.
I can’t find the article I read last night but I think it made a good point: given the evidence in this case it never would have gone to a grand jury without the public pressure to do so. The GJ is usually a formality so the fact there was no indictment is rare, but again with the evidence present in the case it never should have gotten to that point. If the GJ chose to indict the trial would have been a formality and Wilson still would have walked.
So what we have here is public pressure influencing the course of this case. The people who wanted ‘justice’ would never have gotten it because what they’re seeking–Wilson being charged with murder–is in no way true given the facts of the case.
There’s so much wrong with the way this was handled, from the local law enforcement to the media to the opportunistic criminals to Holder/Sharpton pouring gasoline on the fire. Most of the protestors, even, are part of the problem: they seek ‘justice’ in a case where justice has just been served, a cop who was attacked defended himself and was set free, but their idea of justice completely ignores the actions of the 6’3", 300 lb ‘child’ who robbed a store and attacked a cop.
And the truth is most of the protesters would be shooting too if Brown attacked them as he attacked Wilson. It amazes me to see the mental dances they do to find him guilty of murder when they would have done the same thing.
. But, sometimes, on serious crimes, you have to go to trial even if the case is not as strong as you hope.
Why?
What BLeP said. Understand there is a difference b/t a case that does not have as strong evidence as you hope and one you do not feel was committed. For example, I had a boss who took the position that “every rape must be prosecuted.” But, you have to understand what that means. There were 1 or 2 cases that we did not prosecute because there simply was no evidence that a crime was committed. We never took a case that was not supported by the evidence. But, sometimes that evidence is a lot less than you desire.
. But, sometimes, on serious crimes, you have to go to trial even if the case is not as strong as you hope.
Why?
What BLeP said. Understand there is a difference b/t a case that does not have as strong evidence as you hope and one you do not feel was committed. For example, I had a boss who took the position that “every rape must be prosecuted.” But, you have to understand what that means. There were 1 or 2 cases that we did not prosecute because there simply was no evidence that a crime was committed. We never took a case that was not supported by the evidence. But, sometimes that evidence is a lot less than you desire.
A better question might be whether or not you should take cases to trial that you don’t think you can win.
A better question might be whether or not you should take cases to trial that you don’t think you can win.
Agreed. Completely. My personal position was always that you should not take a case to trial if you did not think you could win. I never lost a criminal case. I attribute that to having good bosses who understood which cases should go to trial.
I can’t find the article I read last night but I think it made a good point: given the evidence in this case it never would have gone to a grand jury without the public pressure to do so. The GJ is usually a formality so the fact there was no indictment is rare, but again with the evidence present in the case it never should have gotten to that point. If the GJ chose to indict the trial would have been a formality and Wilson still would have walked.
So what we have here is public pressure influencing the course of this case. The people who wanted ‘justice’ would never have gotten it because what they’re seeking–Wilson being charged with murder–is in no way true given the facts of the case.
There’s so much wrong with the way this was handled, from the local law enforcement to the media to the opportunistic criminals to Holder/Sharpton pouring gasoline on the fire. Most of the protestors, even, are part of the problem: they seek ‘justice’ in a case where justice has just been served, a cop who was attacked defended himself and was set free, but their idea of justice completely ignores the actions of the 6’3", 300 lb ‘child’ who robbed a store and attacked a cop.
Some cities tend to take police shootings/killings to grand juries as standard procedure. They think it makes things appear more transparent. But most juries and grand juries give cops a tremendous amount of leeway. Convictions are hard with great evidence. This case had very scant evidence of a crime. The evidence that was there seemed to weigh much more heavily towards the cop. And this case also illustrated why eye witnesses suck as evidence. Lots of different people saw things a lot of different ways. And none of them even had to be lying. I’d bet none of them were close to being correct on what actually happened.
To answer Forge’s question, I don’t think this particular case would have gone to a grand jury if it had not been a cop. And with it being a cop, I don’t think here was a chance at all of a conviction.
given the evidence in this case it never would have gone to a grand jury without the public pressure to do so. The GJ is usually a formality so the fact there was no indictment is rare, but again with the evidence present in the case it never should have gotten to that point. If the GJ chose to indict the trial would have been a formality and Wilson still would have walked.
What is bit disconcerting is the fact that a GJ was created because of public pressure. Who’s to say that same public pressure couldn’t have pushed it to trial and then a conviction regardless of evidence?
They may be considering multiple cases, so when meeting once a week, they may not spend all their time on a particular case.
Prosecutors have some control over the process and what is presented to the grand jury. Prosecutors have other cases on their plate too.
There’s more downtime for a grand jury than a jury at a trial, as there is no judge there to speed up the process.
A witness’s lawyer is not allowed in the room, while this eliminates time consuming objections to questions, a witness will often ask to confer with his or her lawyer, which means everything stops as the witness leaves the room.
Often, there’s a good amount of negotiation in getting a witness in there. A mere subpoena doesn’t mean the witness won’t assert his or her right against self-incrimination.
given the evidence in this case it never would have gone to a grand jury without the public pressure to do so. The GJ is usually a formality so the fact there was no indictment is rare, but again with the evidence present in the case it never should have gotten to that point. If the GJ chose to indict the trial would have been a formality and Wilson still would have walked.
What is bit disconcerting is the fact that a GJ was created because of public pressure. Who’s to say that same public pressure couldn’t have pushed it to trial and then a conviction regardless of evidence?
~Matt
How do you think public pressure works, and who is most likely to be influenced by it?
Grand juoros are not elected officials, so they don’t have to worry about the next election if they don’t appease the public sentiment.
They are not governmental appointees employees and staff who may have to report to elected officials and who’s continued employment might be at stake.
When their time is up, they’re done, and they go home. Sure, there might be some pressure to the extent that they think they might be publicly shamed if their identiies are widely made known. But that’s on an entirely different level than the public pressure on elected officials
It’s my experience that most juries and jurors take their duties very seriously, even in those cases where they get it wrong. So, yes, there’s some risk, but it’s extremely remote. So remote that it’s a system I’m willing to live with.
It’s my experience that most juries and jurors take their duties very seriously, even in those cases where they get it wrong. So, yes, there’s some risk, but it’s extremely remote. So remote that it’s a system I’m willing to live with.
Agree it’s remote and maybe even nothing to worry about. That being said we’ve had plenty of wrongly convicted individuals sitting in jail for years. Again, maybe remote, but disconcerting none the less.
In this case maybe it was the best route. Show “Good faith” that the decision was out of the hands of the officials that are most likely to back the officer and in the hands of the civilians. At the same time what happens if those civilians decide to send the person up the river? Again I agree and my experience is similar to yours, when you get into the jury process you take things pretty seriously, but I don’t pretend that everyone is like me or people I know.
The Casey Anthony case was too weak to be a capital murder trial. But there are incentives to pursue such. Capital murder cases get bigger budget allocations. You can aim high and still win with a lesser charge.
Duke rape trial, well Nifong is still ok.
The system should be designed to protect against political expediency. Perhaps at one time it was. But we have become a law and order or safety at any cost society. Maybe we deserve it.
Agree it’s remote and maybe even nothing to worry about. That being said we’ve had plenty of wrongly convicted individuals sitting in jail for years. Again, maybe remote, but disconcerting none the less.
But in those cases where we have wrongly convicted individuals, how often is that a result of the jury being influenced by public opinion as opposed to some other reason.
In this case maybe it was the best route. Show “Good faith” that the decision was out of the hands of the officials that are most likely to back the officer and in the hands of the civilians. At the same time what happens if those civilians decide to send the person up the river?
In this case, if the grand jury were to have issued an indictment, the officer would still not have been sent up the river. Rather, he would have had a trial before a different jury, where the standard of conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for the grand jury to issue an indictment is a much lower probable cause one.
I don’t follow your logic. On one hand you’re dismissing any politicization of the process, that GJ’s aren’t political figures:
Grand juoros are not elected officials, so they don’t have to worry about the next election if they don’t appease the public sentiment.
They are not governmental appointees employees and staff who may have to report to elected officials and who’s continued employment might be at stake.
So with that said, doesn’t it then follow that the individuals on the GJ would rule based on the evidence in front of them, and the instructions they were given in delivering a verdict?
But then I *think *you’re implying the GJ ruled different than you’d expect, given the indictment standards:
In this case, if the grand jury were to have issued an indictment, the officer would still not have been sent up the river. Rather, he would have had a trial before a different jury, where the standard of conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for the grand jury to issue an indictment is a much lower probable cause one.
Maybe the evidence presented to the GJ was strong enough that even with the low indictment standards they couldn’t reasonably deliver a no bill, why is that not the default option if you truly believe the GJ isn’t influenced by public pressure? If anything I’d say the people on the GJ would feel some level of pressure to indict, leaving the ultimate ruling to the trial jury.
Ultimately my question is: given the lower standards on a GJ to indict; given their lack of public pressure to deliver a no bill, and if anything perhaps pressure to indict; given the fact these are twelve regular citizens ruling on the evidence presented to them with a low standard for indictment…doesn’t this lend even MORE credibility to the argument that Wilson was 100% justified in his actions? To me it does, I’d be interested to hear if and why people believe otherwise.