There was no trial. There was a Grand Jury. The prosecutor presented all the evidence relevant to the case so the Grand Jury could decide if there was anything that SHOULD go to trial. The prosecutor wasn't trying to defend Wilson because Wilson wasn't a defendant.
Now...in regard to that article you posted, I have a profound dislike of...and I tend to distrust...articles that say one thing in the headline and another, contradictory, thing in the body of the article. It makes me want to ignore everything I'm reading in the article.
Here is the headline with my highlights:
Here are the weasel words in the article:Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says
So, my question is...was she a "key witness"...or not?Since the identities of the grand jurors in the Darren Wilson case are secret, it is difficult to calculate the degree to which McElroy's testimony affected the outcome or how seriously prosecutors considered it.
Also, it wasn't up to the prosecutor to consider her testimony. That was up to the Grand Jury members. It sounds like the prosecutor presented her testimony...as he should have done. I'm guessing the Grand Jury members considered ALL the evidence that was presented to them before they made their decision.
In any case, whysoserious...there is one thing you got right in your post: This doesn't change anything.