Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

[Amadeus]

Just curious what the consensus is.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Unless new material/forensic evidence is revealed, I would say no.

 

[Amadeus]

Unless new material/forensic evidence is revealed, I would say no.

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

 

[Rogue Valley]

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty.

I'm very cognoscente of what the duty of a grand jury is, and have posted such information in more than one Ferguson thread here.

 

[Kobie]

No prosecutor who wants to stay one would tank a grand jury hearing.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

throw is maybe a charged term.

it is interesting however that there is still to this day-- months later--- a seeming controversy over the distance that Brown fled/died from the vehicle.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

This was a very unique circumstance though. For one thing, we know now that many of the so called "witnesses" lied about just what they saw. I mean, were the prosecutor to do his normal duty, he would of never brought this information to a grand jury in the first place. However, the public demanded that at least some measure of blood be taken, and thus is why we got a grand jury. Honestly, if it had been a black man who shot a white kid, it would of never gotten as far as it did. Ultimately, the grand jury was about getting to the truth of the matter, or at least close to it. Were an indicted to of been handed down, it would of indicated that there was some cause to charge the officer, which there clearly wasn't in the case.

At the end of the day though, it wasn't up to the prosecutor, the grand jury decided to return a no bill on any of the possible charges. Were he to really throw it, he could of reached for a extreme charge.

 

[CanadaJohn]

1. As far as I know, this wasn't a trial - grand juries review the presentation of a selection of evidence usually designed to provide the very minimum to secure an indictment. Trials happen in courts of law, with judges, counsel for the prosecution and the defense, and usually empaneled juries. That was not the case here.

2. It seems apparent to me that the prosecutor had no intention of calling for a grand jury hearing based on the evidence he had and the lack of a crime to prosecute. He was forced into it politically.

3. As a result of being forced into a sham grand jury process, the prosecutor threw everything at the panel, including all the exculpatory evidence and in effect presented the defense case that would likely be presented had it gone to trial. The prosecutor had no interest in getting a phony indictment and then getting blown out of the water during a court trial where he would have been left with one side calling him a failure for not winning the case and the other side calling him a political hack for trying the case in the first place.

Justice was served. And in my view, more grand jury hearings should get to see the exculpatory evidence too to avoid a lot of unnecessary trials and expense to the system and innocent defendants.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Just curious what the consensus is.

He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.

 

[TeleKat]

I don't know, I wasn't in there....

 

[SMTA]

He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.

So how many police officers were involved in shootings and not charged?

 

[Capster78]

Simply is no evidence to even suggest that occurred. But the inference is not lost on me. Basically, your echoing the thoughts of those who, regardless of the evidence, would convict the officer of some type of crime no matter what.

 

[Excon]

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty.

Which is exactly what happened.

The threshold to find that a crime may have happened is so low, yet this GJ did not find evidence that a crime happened.

From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Yeah I saw some idiot trying to pass this off as if meant something.
There is no reason to keep it in mind as it isn't relevant.

It comes from:

United States v. Williams, 504 US 36 - Supreme Court 1992

United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992).​

Scalia was pointing out the historic function of the GJ.
The prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence, which is what the petitioner in that case wanted.
It does not mean the prosecutor is prohibited from presenting, or that the GJ is prohibited from considering such information in their quest to determine if the evidence in toto is sufficient to suggest that a crime happened.

It is nothing more than an uneducated attempt to suggest impropriety when there was none.


The way things happened is the way they should have.

 

[Excon]

it is interesting however that there is still to this day-- months later--- a seeming controversy over the distance that Brown fled/died from the vehicle.

There you go still trying to suggest such an absurdity.
Your lack of understanding the evidence does not a controversy make.

There is no controversy.
Which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

---

He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

Bs. Data was not just summarily dumped on them, nor was anything made too difficult for them.
Listening to each witnesses' multiple interviews to determine their credibility is hardly too difficult. or too much evidence.

Honestly. D'oh! Someone is complaining about too much evidence. :doh

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

An irrelevant assertion.
What do you think the Prosecutor and Jury asking questions is? It would be a defense that is the one who would benefit from cross.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

You are wrong.
He present his press conference based on what was found by the Grand Jury.
And no, he is not supposed to work on behalf of a supposed victim, especially as it hadn't been determined who the actual victim was. Brown or Wilson.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

:doh
All irrelevant.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.

:doh
:naughty
No, he didn't throw it. All you have is a dislike with no valid argument.
Nothing more.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Just curious what the consensus is.

I do not think he intentionally threw the case, but I do think he intentionally gave the Grand Jury an overwhelming amount of information for the purpose of covering his own ass no matter what the outcome was.

Most of the time the function of the Grand Jury is for the DA to present a reasonable (not minimal, not everything... it is not one or the other) amount of evidence to show that a crime occurred and the person of interest should face charges for it based on what is presented. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but a threshold of evidence to support that someone should be charged with a crime.

What this DA did was show everything he had knowing that before they even got to that step there were Federal eyes watching his moves based on "civil rights" leaders locally and imported saying he was unfit to handle the case. Those same groups wanted a *minimal* amount of evidence presented to secure an indictment. I think the DA intentionally presented just about everything to avoid a potential complaint. That and presenting everything also allowed him to honestly show what everything in the evidence packet really means. There was no reason to charge Wilson with a crime. That said, if the DA did present a minimal and still did not get an indictment then those same leaders complaining today would be complaining about what he presented kicking off an even bigger mess of media & legal evaluations.

In other words, no matter what this DA did plenty were bound to be upset. And it is mainly because few seem really interested in what happened, only what appears to have happened. Well, the Grand Jury evaluated what really happened and those that wanted action based on appearances are going to be upset.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So how many police officers were involved in shootings and not charged?

At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce - The Washington Post
20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting : News
St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades : News

 

[Lutherf]

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Keep in mind that indicting a ham sandwich means that you then have to have some basis to that sandwich guilty of something or else you have wasted your time, the jury's time, the judge's time, the taxpayer's money and your credibility.

Angela Corey blew off the grand jury and directly indicted Zimmerman. That turned out to be an absolute fiasco. Mike Nifong rushed to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse team because of public opinion and look where that got him.

Sometimes just because because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it.

 

[SMTA]

At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce - The Washington Post
20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting : News
St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades : News

Huh - interesting reading.

I had not read anything about the prosecutor.

I do find it strange that, in spite of this, that Ferguson voter turnout in November was very low.

With all of this baggage, the prosecutor has never been voted out of office for 23 years.

It seems, then, that they have a prosecutor that they deserve.

 

[radcen]

Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

"Throw" implies intent to twist or direct the outcome to a desired result. I do not believe he intended to twist or direct the outcome, though I also think he was not displeased with the outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly was hoping for this outcome. Given that, no, I don't think he "threw" it, but I do think he didn't try very hard to make it as fair and balanced as possible.

 

[SMTA]

"Throw" implies intent to twist or direct the outcome to a desired result. I do not believe he intended to twist or direct the outcome, though I also think he was not displeased with the outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if he secretly was hoping for this outcome. Given that, no, I don't think he "threw" it, but I do think he didn't try very hard to make it as fair and balanced as possible.

It also maintains the positive relationship between the prosecutor's office and the cops, who both believe in co-dependence.

 

[CanadaJohn]

He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.

I'll ignore the balance of your "unbiased" take on the matter and focus on the bolded part. Can you tell me the process for a prosecutor in the US to indict someone? You seem to be implying that it's a matter of choice on the part of the prosecutor - that's not my understanding of the American system, but then I'm just a Canadian so I could be wrong. In addition, since you seem to know, how many other shootings by police officers in this prosecutor's jurisdiction have taken place over the past 23 years and how many were not presented to a grand jury, because clearly only those not presented to a grand jury can be held as solely the responsibility of this prosecutor, wouldn't you agree?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

There you go still trying to suggest such an absurdity.
Your lack of understanding the evidence does not a controversy make.

There is no controversy.
Which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

you've had what, 24-48 hours to find in that 45 minute clip where Wilson argues Brown fled further than the 30-40 feet Stephanopolous asked about and Wilson seemed to agree with.

Where's the timestamp where he says how much further he fled?
Shall I keep waiting for your reply with this info?

 

[eohrnberger]

Perhaps pedantic, but . . .

"Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?"

Not sure but I don't think that it was a 'trial'. I think it's a grand jury 'hearing'.

 

[Zyphlin]

Just curious what the consensus is.

"Throw"? No, not in the way you're likely implying.

What I think is that the Prosectuor in no way, shape, or form thought there was a legitimate case to be made here that had any true hope of gaining a guilty plea and the only reason it even made it to the grand jury was because of public pressure all the way up to the White House.

Without that pressure, based on the evidence, I'm not sure if the prosecutor would've even bothered to go through this process.

However, due to pressure he was forced to do so. As such, he was essentially being pressured into persuing a case he likely felt was a waste of his time, a waste of the tax payer dollars, and a sure fire loss. It's hard to put together a significantly sound argument for something you have absolutely zero conviction in and believe is absolutely wrong. So as such, I think he tried to go the most neutral route possible which was to provide every bit of information possible to the grand jury and let them come to their conclussion.

Essentially, I think he didn't want an indictment because he knew there was no way there'd be a legitimate way to argue for a conviction in this case, which is bad for his job, bad for the people he represents, and just generally not smart prosecuting. So he made no significant effort to GET an indictment, but I don't think he did anything to purposefully NOT get one either.

There's a saying that you can indict a ham sandwich. What's lost with that saying is that it's assumed the prosecutor DESIRES an indictment. Those that are indicted by grand juries tend to have a high conviction rate, precisely because prosecutors typically don't bother trying to get an indictment except in cases they think they stand a high chance of getting a conviction or forcing a plea deal. If they don't actually think conviction is likely they will typically forgo trying hard to get an indictment, as a failure to convict hurts them professional and their constituents fiscally.

This particular ham sandwich was felt to have little to no chance of being found guilty given the witnesses statements that matched up with the forensic evidence, and so the prosecutor did not make extensive effort to get an indictment (probably because he had no intent to take the case in the first place, save for political pressure). I think that's different than "throwing" the hearing, which would imply he was actively sabatoging it rather than simply not going out of his way to try and win it.

 

[shrubnose]

Just curious what the consensus is.

The prosecutor didn't want a trial, that's #1.- Why we're not looking forward to a trial and #2.- Why what has happened, has happened.

If the prosecutor had wanted a trial, there would be a trial.
He maneuvered this case so that the grand jury got him out of a tight spot.