Uncomfortable FACT about Ferguson for conservatives...

[BlackSand]

Sounds like some kangaroo court in some banana republic...good enough for our GOVERNMENT loving friends on the right...who cares if proper procedure was followed...

Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

On August 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African American Michael Brown. Since that fateful day, people across the country have protested against racial profiling, excessive police force, and the failure of the criminal justice system to provide accountability.

The nail in the coffin of "equal justice under law" came on November 24, when the St. Louis County grand jury refused to indict Wilson for any criminal charges in the shooting death of Brown. In a virtually unprecedented move, St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in effect deputized the grand jurors to sit as triers of fact as in a jury trial.

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

The prosecutor didn't have to send the case to the Grand Jury.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Mustang]

I've heard conservatives say that Black citizens' complaints that there aren't enough Black cops and/or the fact that Ferguson is overwhelmingly Black while the police force is predominantly White is a racist sentiment?

Really?

I suppose we could put that sentiment to the test if we could find a predominately conservatives White neighborhood in this country which had a police dept that was predominately Black (from the police chief on down) and was patrolled by police cruisers manned predominately by Black police officers. Considering how disrespectfully White conservatives talk about President Obama (not to mention the First Lady), anyone here think that White conservatives would put up with being ordered around by Black police officers?

Anyone?

Your argument actually works against you because white people aren't as concerned about the racial makeup of the police department as blacks. It's blacks who whine about a largely white police force, you never hear whites doing that. And in the case of Ferguson, many efforts have been made to get more black applicants to the police department, but they're not stepping up. So fuck them. Seriously.

Really? I beg to differ. People of ALL races tend to have an expectation of good treatment. When it's not forthcoming, they understandably look for reasons to account for it, particularly when they don't feel that they've done anything to justify being treated badly. Consequently, whether a person is Black or White doesn't make any difference at all if a police officer is a member of a different race. If and when people reach the conclusion that race (or some other factor aside from the particulars of the stop) is a factor, those people may be reading the situation right, or it may all be in their own mind. A statistical analysis might be a better way to determine whether something other than impartial police work was at play. Regardless, I can ASSURE you that affluent White people who are accustomed to being treated deferentially are far less likely to put up with poor treatment than relatively powerless Black people who have come to expect harassment at the hands of the police.

 

[Bfgrn]

Brown confronted an agent of GOVERNMENT. He was executed and you folks cheer for GOVERNMENT...

Got it!

No doubt, if Brown had gotten the gun away from Wilson and shot and killed him, you would have cheered him on.

No doubt huh? Based on what? I believe this could have and should have been handled without anyone being executed. Officer Wilson or Micheal Brown. Officer Wilson could have driven a few hundred yards and waited for backup.

Coulda. shoulda, woulda. Wilson was doing his job. Brown committed robbery and assaulted a police officer, and is dead as a result of his own actions. Next.

Were you there? Did you see what happened??

Oh I KNOW...the GOVERNMENT said he did...

Were you there? Did you see what happened? Oh I know. The government is in collusion with Satan so they are never right. See how that logic works?

Don't you know, government is only in collusion with Satan when it tries to help citizens. When it bombs, eviscerates humans, tortures, profiles, arrests, shackles, and executes, government is doing God's work...ask ANY conservative...

 

[orogenicman]

Chris rock says it all:

 

[Bfgrn]

Sounds like some kangaroo court in some banana republic...good enough for our GOVERNMENT loving friends on the right...who cares if proper procedure was followed...

Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

On August 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African American Michael Brown. Since that fateful day, people across the country have protested against racial profiling, excessive police force, and the failure of the criminal justice system to provide accountability.

The nail in the coffin of "equal justice under law" came on November 24, when the St. Louis County grand jury refused to indict Wilson for any criminal charges in the shooting death of Brown. In a virtually unprecedented move, St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in effect deputized the grand jurors to sit as triers of fact as in a jury trial.

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

The prosecutor didn't have to send the case to the Grand Jury.

.

Yes he did. But instead of asking the Grand Jury for an indictment, he vehemently defended Wilson. There was NONE of the fair trial procedures like cross examination. There were witnesses that testified Brown had his arms up and was surrendering when Wilson executed him. THAT ALONE should have been grounds for an indictment and REAL JURY trial...

This was a travesty. The irony is this is what we would expect to see in the old Soviet Union or Iron Curtain countries...it is good enough for commies, so it is good enough for right wingers in America.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've heard conservatives say that Black citizens' complaints that there aren't enough Black cops and/or the fact that Ferguson is overwhelmingly Black while the police force is predominantly White is a racist sentiment?

Really?

I suppose we could put that sentiment to the test if we could find a predominately conservatives White neighborhood in this country which had a police dept that was predominately Black (from the police chief on down) and was patrolled by police cruisers manned predominately by Black police officers. Considering how disrespectfully White conservatives talk about President Obama (not to mention the First Lady), anyone here think that White conservatives would put up with being ordered around by Black police officers?

Anyone?

Your argument actually works against you because white people aren't as concerned about the racial makeup of the police department as blacks. It's blacks who whine about a largely white police force, you never hear whites doing that. And in the case of Ferguson, many efforts have been made to get more black applicants to the police department, but they're not stepping up. So fuck them. Seriously.

Really? I beg to differ. People of ALL races tend to have an expectation of good treatment. When it's not forthcoming, they understandably look for reasons to account for it, particularly when they don't feel that they've done anything to justify being treated badly. Consequently, whether a person is Black or White doesn't make any difference at all if a police officer is a member of a different race. If and when people reach the conclusion that race (or some other factor aside from the particulars of the stop) is a factor, those people may be reading the situation right, or it may all be in their own mind. A statistical analysis might be a better way to determine whether something other than impartial police work was at play. Regardless, I can ASSURE you that affluent White people who are accustomed to being treated deferentially are far less likely to put up with poor treatment than relatively powerless Black people who have come to expect harassment at the hands of the police.

What does any of that bullshit have to do with the fact that Ferguson blacks refuse to join their own police department? Like I said, fuck 'em.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes he did. But instead of asking the Grand Jury for an indictment, he vehemently defended Wilson. There was NONE of the fair trial procedures like cross examination. There were witnesses that testified Brown had his arms up and was surrendering when Wilson executed him. THAT ALONE should have been grounds for an indictment and REAL JURY trial...

This was a travesty. The irony is this is what we would expect to see in the old Soviet Union or Iron Curtain countries...it is good enough for commies, so it is good enough for right wingers in America.

Uh no ... The Prosecutor didn't have to send the case to the Grand Jury ... And if he simply didn't want to chance Officer Wilson facing charges in a jury trail he could have chosen not to. That blows the crap out of your theory.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.

oh wait.

you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?

Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.

I've seen the facts. The grand jury got it right. How them being correct is a travesty of justice when you don't like the results, I don't know.

Clearly you don't understand what the role of a Grand Jury is and isn't. Even far right wing Justice Scalia understands.

In the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that, "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." The U.S. Constitution does not require prosecutors to present evidence favorable to the defense. It is the grand jury's role to decide whether there is enough evidence for a criminal charge.

McCulloch allowed the officer to testify for hours in front of the grand jury and never challenged Wilson’s account of his confrontation with Brown.

Ferguson Grand Jury Documents Reveal Missteps By Officer Darren Wilson Investigators Prosecutor

you do realize that there is a difference between a state grand jury and a federal one right? You realize they work under different jurisdictions and rules, right?

because it doesn't matter what justice scalia said about federal grand juries 20 years ago. It has absolutely no application whatsoever to the Missouri state grand jury today. Heck, it might not even have anything to do with federal grand juries today because rules and procedures change over time.

he is innocent. The facts bear that out. The grand jury made the correct decision. Please leave the law to people who understand it or actually learn how our system of government works.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

What does this have to do with Ferguson?

Find an adult that can explain it to you..

you either need to stop selling yourself short or grow uo

 

[TemplarKormac]

The U.S. Constitution does not require prosecutors to present evidence favorable to the defense.

Nor does it stop them. There's the key. Keep picking those cherries my friend.

McCulloch allowed the officer to testify for hours in front of the grand jury and never challenged Wilson’s account of his confrontation with Brown.

He never challenged Wilson's account because all of the evidence supported it. You conveniently forget the forensic evidence and witness testimonies.

EPIC fail. A childish post.

It's only childish because you can't disprove it. Whine all you wish. Reality does not favor the foolish, or people named Bfgrn.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't you know, government is only in collusion with Satan when it tries to help citizens. When it bombs, eviscerates humans, tortures, profiles, arrests, shackles, and executes, government is doing God's work...ask ANY conservative...

You've completely lost it. You created this thread to trash conservatives and wound up getting trashed. This is an utterly puerile post. Please, by all means continue calling my posts childish; it won't save you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This was a travesty.

Which part? The non indictment, or the part where people burned down stores and robbed them blind?

If it is the latter, I agree. It is a damned shame. I don't even think you care about Micheal Brown, all you care about is using his death as a way to pick fights.

 

[Avatar4321]

The narrative that Wilson tried to hit the two young men with his SUV was provided by Brown's little buddy, Dorian Johnson. Your problem with his testimony is that Dorian has a bad habit of lying his ass off to make himself look good. If you'll recall, Johnson originally said that he met up with Michael Brown outside of the convenience store. When it became public knowledge that there was a tape showing what happened inside of the store that day, Johnson changed that story completely, admitting he was in the store with Brown but that he (Johnson) didn't steal anything.

The more I read you posts here, it is clear you are a real piece of shit. Comparing human beings to hunting wild animals.

Wilson was not hunting wild animals. His job was to arrest and then let a judge and/or jury decide guilt or innocence and hand out proper justice. Wilson served as judge, jury and executioner. He executed a human being. This cop refused carry or use non lethal weapons or drive away and allow backup to arrive. He testified that a tazer was too cumbersome and pepper spray might get in his eyes. He made NO effort to seek a non lethal way to resolve this confrontation. He is not a peace officer. He is a thug with a badge.

I never said that Wilson was hunting animals. I simply made the point that someone can run quite a distance when shot. The fact that you turned what I said into my calling Michael Brown an animal shows just how over the top you're willing to go with this whole thing!

Officer Wilson didn't serve as "judge, jury and executioner"...he simply did his job that morning. What happened was totally the fault of the man who ended up dead on the ground. It wasn't Wilson who woke up with an attitude that day. It wasn't Wilson who decided to rob a store and push around the clerk who tried to stop him. It wasn't Wilson who decided to stroll down the center line of the street holding the cigars he's just stolen. It wasn't Wilson who refused to get out of the street. It wasn't Wilson who reached inside that SUV window and repeatedly struck a police officer. It wasn't Wilson who refused to surrender ever after being shot.

Darren Wilson had been on the job for six years and that was the first time he'd ever shot his gun. To call him a "thug with a badge" is such hyperbole that it's absurd even for you. Police don't "drive away" when they confront felons. They confront them. That's their JOB! That's what that officer did that day...HIS JOB! Nothing more...nothing less.

Michael Brown was executed. That is not the sentence for petty larceny and disobeying a police officer.

Officer Wilson's attitude created the scenario that ended with this tragedy. He rejected the use of all non lethal weapons at his disposal, because they were either too cumbersome or he might get a little pepper in his own eyes. So when a confrontation manifested, he had only ONE weapon at his disposal...a LETHAL one. There is nothing written in law that an officer can't retreat to a safe distance and wait for backup to arrive. He could have driven a few hundred feet to buy time for backup to arrive and assist in the apprehension of a UNARMED young man.

It is amazing just how incurious and unquestioning you folks are when it comes to the GOVERNMENT agencies you folks support. And it is ironic that all those agencies dole out death to citizens.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Micheal Brown didn't "disobey" a police officer...Michael Brown committed assault and battery on a police officer! Michael Brown tried to wrestle a police officer's gun away from him after striking him! What part of that concept don't you grasp? Do you think somehow that there should have been a "trial" conducted in the midst of that fight to determine what Officer Wilson's response was allowed to be? How does that work in your naive little world, Bfgrn? I'd really like to know...

Brown confronted an agent of GOVERNMENT. He was executed and you folks cheer for GOVERNMENT...

Got it!

so you admit he attacked him. And you don't see how attacking a police officer is going to get him killed?

what conservative do you see advocating attacking government officials?

 

[TemplarKormac]

People of ALL races tend to have an expectation of good treatment.

Actually not. One member of any race who charges a cop and tries to kill him deserves whatever fate befalls him. They don't need to be treated like a saint or a martyr. Micheal Brown was a punk and acted like a punk. He died as one. His parents should be ashamed they raised him up that way, now they will live with that on their conscience for the rest of their natural lives.

It doesn't matter if you're black, white, purple, pink or polka dotted; you get treated the same as everyone else, whether good or bad. You can't cry racism each time a black kid screws up and gets arrested or killed. It's as if you are encouraging such behavior because of his race. You believe a black kid can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

 

[Antares]

Sounds like some kangaroo court in some banana republic...good enough for our GOVERNMENT loving friends on the right...who cares if proper procedure was followed...

Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

On August 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African American Michael Brown. Since that fateful day, people across the country have protested against racial profiling, excessive police force, and the failure of the criminal justice system to provide accountability.

The nail in the coffin of "equal justice under law" came on November 24, when the St. Louis County grand jury refused to indict Wilson for any criminal charges in the shooting death of Brown. In a virtually unprecedented move, St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in effect deputized the grand jurors to sit as triers of fact as in a jury trial.

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

The prosecutor didn't have to send the case to the Grand Jury.

.

Yes he did. But instead of asking the Grand Jury for an indictment, he vehemently defended Wilson. There was NONE of the fair trial procedures like cross examination. There were witnesses that testified Brown had his arms up and was surrendering when Wilson executed him. THAT ALONE should have been grounds for an indictment and REAL JURY trial...

This was a travesty. The irony is this is what we would expect to see in the old Soviet Union or Iron Curtain countries...it is good enough for commies, so it is good enough for right wingers in America.

Perhaps you should learn how a Grand Jury operates.

THERE is no cross examination that's not how it works moron.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've heard conservatives say that Black citizens' complaints that there aren't enough Black cops and/or the fact that Ferguson is overwhelmingly Black while the police force is predominantly White is a racist sentiment?

Really?

I suppose we could put that sentiment to the test if we could find a predominately conservatives White neighborhood in this country which had a police dept that was predominately Black (from the police chief on down) and was patrolled by police cruisers manned predominately by Black police officers. Considering how disrespectfully White conservatives talk about President Obama (not to mention the First Lady), anyone here think that White conservatives would put up with being ordered around by Black police officers?

Anyone?

Your argument actually works against you because white people aren't as concerned about the racial makeup of the police department as blacks. It's blacks who whine about a largely white police force, you never hear whites doing that. And in the case of Ferguson, many efforts have been made to get more black applicants to the police department, but they're not stepping up. So fuck them. Seriously.

Really? I beg to differ. People of ALL races tend to have an expectation of good treatment. When it's not forthcoming, they understandably look for reasons to account for it, particularly when they don't feel that they've done anything to justify being treated badly. Consequently, whether a person is Black or White doesn't make any difference at all if a police officer is a member of a different race. If and when people reach the conclusion that race (or some other factor aside from the particulars of the stop) is a factor, those people may be reading the situation right, or it may all be in their own mind. A statistical analysis might be a better way to determine whether something other than impartial police work was at play. Regardless, I can ASSURE you that affluent White people who are accustomed to being treated deferentially are far less likely to put up with poor treatment than relatively powerless Black people who have come to expect harassment at the hands of the police.

what good treatment does anyone expect to receive after robbing a store and attacking a police officer?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Regardless, I can ASSURE you that affluent White people who are accustomed to being treated deferentially are far less likely to put up with poor treatment than relatively powerless Black people who have come to expect harassment at the hands of the police.

You must be joking. Do you have any proof of this? Adam Lanza was white, he killed 26 kids. Had he not committed suicide, he would have been given the death penalty. Would they have spared him punishment because of his being white?

What about Jared Loughner? He shot a congresswoman in the head, which is a federal offense. He killed 19 other people, which will most certainly get him the death penalty as well. Did the courts spare him his punishment because he was white?

What of James Holmes? He shot up an entire theater, killed 12 people. Do you think the courts will spare him his punishment because he is white?

Did the arresting officers hold back because any of these murderers were white? Black people are subject to the same laws all of us are. It's a pity you can't accept that. What if a black person tried to kill you? Would you spare any effort in stopping him? If you had a gun, would you shoot him?

It's quite different when you're on the business end of an attack by a black person. That is why Darren Wilson shot Micheal Brown. Though I get the distinct impression that you would have rather Wilson died in that altercation than Brown. If he had, you would be screaming that Brown was acting in self defense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.

oh wait.

you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?

Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.

I've seen the facts. The grand jury got it right. How them being correct is a travesty of justice when you don't like the results, I don't know.

Clearly you don't understand what the role of a Grand Jury is and isn't. Even far right wing Justice Scalia understands.

In the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that, "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." The U.S. Constitution does not require prosecutors to present evidence favorable to the defense. It is the grand jury's role to decide whether there is enough evidence for a criminal charge.

McCulloch allowed the officer to testify for hours in front of the grand jury and never challenged Wilson’s account of his confrontation with Brown.

Ferguson Grand Jury Documents Reveal Missteps By Officer Darren Wilson Investigators Prosecutor

you do realize that there is a difference between a state grand jury and a federal one right? You realize they work under different jurisdictions and rules, right?

because it doesn't matter what justice scalia said about federal grand juries 20 years ago. It has absolutely no application whatsoever to the Missouri state grand jury today. Heck, it might not even have anything to do with federal grand juries today because rules and procedures change over time.

he is innocent. The facts bear that out. The grand jury made the correct decision. Please leave the law to people who understand it or actually learn how our system of government works.

Seriously?

Scalia pointed out that GJ's have operated under the same rules for hundreds of years but suddenly there are different "rules and procedures" in the last 20 years?

That doesn't even pass the LOL test.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sounds like some kangaroo court in some banana republic...good enough for our GOVERNMENT loving friends on the right...who cares if proper procedure was followed...

Prosecutor Manipulates Grand Jury Process to Shield Officer

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.

On August 9, Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson gunned down 18-year-old African American Michael Brown. Since that fateful day, people across the country have protested against racial profiling, excessive police force, and the failure of the criminal justice system to provide accountability.

The nail in the coffin of "equal justice under law" came on November 24, when the St. Louis County grand jury refused to indict Wilson for any criminal charges in the shooting death of Brown. In a virtually unprecedented move, St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch in effect deputized the grand jurors to sit as triers of fact as in a jury trial.

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.

The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

Huffington Post. Why am I not surprised.