Darren Wilson not indicted

[Arella]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

Nah they'll just expect someone to bring it in to them. Poor poor pity full me saw it after nearly every riots situation where they burnt down their stores and such. We destroyed it and now you have to come bail us out and do for us.

And everyone should throw up their hands and say, "Nope. You did it to yourselves. You made your own bed, now sleep in it."

[thalassa]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

Curious.

Was the decision not to indict a miscarriage of justice, or was it actual justice?

(the former choice, without evidence, is foolish. The later, without evidence is slightly less foolish - because one is innocent until proven guilty in this country. At any rate, reviewing the same evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury BEFORE having an opinion, rather than jumping to an "obvious" conclusion based on what one has heard, seems like a wise course of action)

Well, considering that justice is supposed to be about fairness, equity, honesty, balance, and objectivity... Any Grand Jury decision is a miscarriage of justice, period--not only does the prosecutor get to cherry pick evidence to show them, but the defense can neither present their own evidence nor cross examine witnesses. The system should have been abolished years ago. I *think* we might be the only country left that still uses this ridiculously outdated system.

[Thorbjorn]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

but the defense can neither present their own evidence nor cross examine witnesses.

That is absolutely untrue. Having sat on grand jury we had several cases where the defendants themselves testified. It is their right. Moreover, the jury itself cross-examines witnesses, defense and plaintiff.

[thalassa]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

That is absolutely untrue. Having sat on grand jury we had several cases where the defendants themselves testified. It is their right. Moreover, the jury itself cross-examines witnesses, defense and plaintiff.

The jury asking the defendent questions is not cross-examination.

Either way, I'm willing to bet it differs from state to state and federal vs state proceedings. My hubby has sat on a grand jury, and this wasn't allowed.

What is a grand jury and what does it usually do?

Grand jury practice is determined on a state-by-state basis. The U.S. Constitutional right to a grand jury indictment in a felony case, included in the Fifth Amendment,[1] has not been incorporated as to the states and thus does not apply to state prosecutions. Many state constitutions require a grand jury indictment in certain cases and specify the powers of a grand jury. The practices of grand juries thus vary by state and federal jurisdictions.[2][3]

The grand jury process is now so routinized in most state jurisdictions that it has become a pro forma[4][5]pro forma in ordinary cases and others may require hearing a range of evidence that federal prosecutors are not required to present.

What is a typical grand jury procedure?

In a typical state grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor calls only one or two witnesses, usually the reporting officer and the victim (if there is one), and the prosecutor tries to limit testimony as much as possible in order to avoid creating impeachment evidence for cross-examination by defense counsel. In more complex cases, additional witnesses are called and physical and forensic evidence presented.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, closed to the public and to defense counsel. The officer presiding in the grand jury is the prosecutor, who also instructs the grand jury on the law. There is no judge in the grand jury room.

Targets rarely appear before the grand jury, although a sympathetic target with a defense narrative will often choose to appear in a complex case.

Grand jurors can in some jurisdictions direct questions at a witness. In the Michael Brown shooting death, some grand jurors directed questions to Darren Wilson during his four-hour testimony.[6]

Grand juries can hear dozens of cases during any one term. Their terms can extend over months. They are not sequestered. However they are bound to rules of secrecy.

The State of Missouri has a provision, in its Bill of Rights, which describes the composition, jurisdiction, and powers of the grand jury, but does not make grand juries constitutionally required in all cases.[7]

What did the St. Louis County grand jury decide in the Michael Brown shooting?

This St. Louis County Grand Jury decided to return no bill of indictment against Officer Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. This grand jury did not decide that a crime did or did not take place. Another grand jury could return a different outcome should the matter be re-introduced at a later time.

What was unusual about the grand jury proceedings in the Michael Brown shooting?Do grand jury proceedings tend to be different in police shooting cases?

In most large jurisdictions, a grand jury is convened to review every police-involved homicide. A prosecutor who, while accountable to an electorate, must also rely on the police department to bring him cases, will frequently find it very useful to attribute a decision not to bring criminal charges to the grand jury. This means that police shootings will sometimes be presented to a grand jury in a situation where, had a civilian been involved, the prosecutor would have made no presentation.

State grand juries tend to be more likely to excuse a police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed civilian, due to broad definitions of deadly force and the rules about when it is justified. In Houston, Texas, for example, local grand juries have cleared police of shooting civilians 288 consecutive times.[8][9] Since Bob McCulloch took over as prosecutor in 1991, there have been no indictments of police officers for shooting incidents.

SOURCE

[Thorbjorn]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

The jury asking the defendent questions is not cross-examination.

We questioned both sides.

[anunitu]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

As I understood the purpose of a grand jury it was to decide if their was enough evidence to charge a person and take them to trial. Not so much to show they were innocent but that there was not enough to warrant a trial. So in this case the cop was not declared innocent,but declared not chargeable.

[Thorbjorn]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

As I understood the purpose of a grand jury it was to decide if their was enough evidence to charge a person and take them to trial. Not so much to show they were innocent but that there was not enough to warrant a trial. So in this case the cop was not declared innocent,but declared not chargeable.

That's exactly a grand jury's duty, and only duty... decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence. That is for the trial jury, if an indictment is handed down and the defendant goes to trial. In this case according to the grand jury, there was insufficient evidence to send Wilson to trial.

[loststarshine]

Re: Darren Wilson not indicted

Nope, which is why we ought to recognize and openly acknowlege when and where it breaks down, and whom it breaks down for, and have a process in place to collect data so that it can be analyzed in order to take steps to mitigate the problem in a way that elimitates as much bias and corruption as possible. We should welcome criticism in an open society--especially if it makes us unconfortable, so that it can be addressed. Certainly, mistakes will be made, and certainly every error is not a sign of an egregious flaw, but when one looks at the numbers, as a nation we shouldn't ever be content with any civil system that is clearly rigged for one group of people over another...whether that be how plea bargains are offered, or who is allowed to get married.

^^^^that so much of that.