Will the Ferguson Grand Jury Indict Officer Wilson? It's Certainly Possible.

[The Professor]

It is possible that a grand jury will indict officer Wilson. This is because grand juries are not concerned with determining guilt or innocence, but only whether there is probable cause to send the case to trial. Further, the grand jurors hear only the evidence that the prosecutor elects to present. Defense counsel does not participate in such hearings. I found what I thought were two good links that explain the grand jury process.


“The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and no judge is present. Defense lawyers are not allowed to be present in the grand jury room and cannot present evidence, but may be available outside the room to consult with witnesses. The prosecutor and the grand jury members may not reveal what occurred in the grand jury room and witnesses cannot obtain a transcript of their testimony.”


What Are Grand Juries


“In carrying out its two functions of reviewing criminal charges which have been brought by police and prosecutors and conducting investigations of possible criminal behavior, the grand jury meets in secret, behind closed doors. Its proceedings are usually one-sided, and are very different from a trial. Unlike a public trial, the accused person is not present (unless he or she is called as a witness), nor is his/her counsel present (even if he is called as a witness). Also, witnesses are not cross-examined. Not even a judge is present in the grand jury room, although a judge will be contacted if a witness refuses to answer a question and the prosecutor wishes to cite the witness for contempt.


“The prosecutor presents the state's case by asking the witness questions. The grand jurors also may ask questions, but neither the actual eyewitness to an alleged crime nor the alleged victim of that crime need to appear as witnesses. The rules that apply in court to exclude most hearsay evidence (evidence provided by someone who did not actually witness the crime) do not apply in the grand jury room. Therefore, a police officer may simply testify as to what eye-witnesses and alleged victims have said.


“Further, information obtained by illegal police investigation, unconstitutional surveillance, or by unreliable means, can be heard and relied upon by grand jurors, even though that information would not be admissible if the case proceeded to trial. Finally, even if a prosecutor knows of information which would help show that the accused person is innocent, he is not required to present it to the grand jury. So, while two sides are presented in a trial, it may be that only one side will be presented in a grand jury proceeding.”


OSBA How Does a Grand Jury Operate


There is no doubt that the grand jury is one sided. Defense lawyers often use the phrase that it is “easy to indict a ham sandwich” using a grand jury. There is much truth in this statement. In the Ferguson case, there are 12 grand jurors and it takes only nine to indict so an indictment is possible.


HOWEVER:


Even if there is an indictment, any calm in Ferguson will be temporary. Getting an indictment is easy but a obtaining a conviction will be difficult. In a jury trail every one of the 12 jurors must vote the same way, otherwise there is a hung jury. Given that the defense only has to prove “reasonable doubt” for an acquittal, I cannot imagine a conviction in this case. There is just too much evidence – including forensic findings and eyewitness testimony – in Wilson's favor to justify a guilty verdict.

I would be astonished if the defense did not move for a change of venue (having the trial moved to another city). In my humble opinion the motion should be granted.

 

[jon_berzerk]

plenty of the grand jury info has been leaked

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

 

[The Professor]

plenty of the grand jury info has been leaked

I'm not sure that the evidence favoring officer Wilson was actually leaked from the grand jury proceedings. Although many people may not believe this, there is no constitutional duty for the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence (evidence favoring the defendant) to the grand jury. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Williams that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.


“In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that the supervisory power of the federal courts could not be used to dismiss an indictment because the prosecutor failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.....


“The Court could not require the prosecutor to reveal substantially exculpatory evidence to the grand jury because if he prosecutor chose to refrain from revealing such evidence, no law or rule would be violated. Furthermore, Scalia reasoned that the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts and that the courts do not preside over the functioning of the grand jury. He wrote: “[T]he whole theory of . . . [the grand jury’s] function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.


“Scalia maintained that the grand jury’s independence from the judicial branch is revealed through the “scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised.” Therefore, because the courts do not have supervisory authority over the grand jury, the Court decided that the Tenth Circuit exceeded its authority when it required the prosecutor to disclose substantially exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.”


http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=clevstlrev


Some states have their own laws requiring prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence, but if such laws exist in Missouri I have not been able to find them. If no such laws are on the books in Missouri, I would question why the prosecutor would divulge information which he has no obligation to disclose and which would jeopardize his case.


It is possible that the leaks come from a source other than the actual grand jury proceedings.

 

[The Professor]

It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial. Grand jurors hear ONLY the evidence the prosecutor presents which makes it rather easy to obtain a grand jury indictment.


In the Michael Brown case, there are multiple witnesses who claim that Brown had his hands in the air and was surrendering when he was shot six times. There is no doubt that the use of deadly force in these circumstances is criminal; therefore if the testimony of these witnesses (no cross-examination is allowed) is the ONLY thing the grand jurors were allowed to hear it would not be unreasonable for them to indict officer Wilson.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial.

Yea, like I said: It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

Thanks for the law lesson, "professor".

 

[The Professor]

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial.

Yea, like I said: It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

Thanks for the law lesson, "professor".

The title "Professor" is earned. I also put the letters MBA, JD after my name.

By the way, you're welcome.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial.

Yea, like I said: It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

Thanks for the law lesson, "professor".

The title "Professor" is earned. I also put the letters MBA, JD after my name.

By the way, you're welcome.

So you're an ambulance chaser...and it only took you two posts to catch up with my sarcasm. Congratulations. I hope you're quicker on your feet in a court of law.

 

[The Professor]

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial.

Yea, like I said: It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

Thanks for the law lesson, "professor".

The title "Professor" is earned. I also put the letters MBA, JD after my name.

By the way, you're welcome.

So you're an ambulance chaser...and it only took you two posts to catch up with my sarcasm. Congratulations. I hope you're quicker on your feet in a court of law.

You stated: “It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.”


It is obvious that you have already made up your mind that the grand jury should not indict. This proves that you don't know a damn thing about grand juries. You have a lot to learn and insulting others won't help you get there.


At any rate, I have a question for you. If YOU were on the grand jury and all the evidence you were allowed to consider was the unchallenged testimony of three witnesses who stated that Brown was shot 6 times while he was surrendering with his hands in the air, would you indict officer Wilson?


I sure as hell would and if you did not I would question your integrity and your inability to follow instructions.


By the way, I know a lot about the case and I am convinced that officer Wilson will never be convicted; however, if the prosecutor aggressively pursues a grand jury indictment he will get one.


OK, I will give you the last word. I don't have that much sand in the top of the hour glass and I am not going to waste any more time on you.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The grand jury is not concerned with justice. It plays no role whatsoever in determining whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. The grand jury's sole duty is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the case to trial.

Yea, like I said: It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.

Thanks for the law lesson, "professor".

The title "Professor" is earned. I also put the letters MBA, JD after my name.

By the way, you're welcome.

So you're an ambulance chaser...and it only took you two posts to catch up with my sarcasm. Congratulations. I hope you're quicker on your feet in a court of law.

You stated: “It depends on whether the prevailing ethos of the grand jury is one of justice, or if it's one that will cave to the torch & pitchfork mentality of the mob.”


It is obvious that you have already made up your mind that the grand jury should not indict. This proves that you don't know a damn thing about grand juries. You have a lot to learn and insulting others won't help you get there.


At any rate, I have a question for you. If YOU were on the grand jury and all the evidence you were allowed to consider was the unchallenged testimony of three witnesses who stated that Brown was shot 6 times while he was surrendering with his hands in the air, would you indict officer Wilson?


I sure as hell would and if you did not I would question your integrity and your inability to follow instructions.


By the way, I know a lot about the case and I am convinced that officer Wilson will never be convicted; however, if the prosecutor aggressively pursues a grand jury indictment he will get one.


OK, I will give you the last word. I don't have that much sand in the top of the hour glass and I am not going to waste any more time on you.

Yea, yea. Goodnight professor. Say hello to Gilligan and Mary Ann.

 

[jon_berzerk]

plenty of the grand jury info has been leaked

I'm not sure that the evidence favoring officer Wilson was actually leaked from the grand jury proceedings. Although many people may not believe this, there is no constitutional duty for the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence (evidence favoring the defendant) to the grand jury. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Williams that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.


“In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that the supervisory power of the federal courts could not be used to dismiss an indictment because the prosecutor failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.....


“The Court could not require the prosecutor to reveal substantially exculpatory evidence to the grand jury because if he prosecutor chose to refrain from revealing such evidence, no law or rule would be violated. Furthermore, Scalia reasoned that the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts and that the courts do not preside over the functioning of the grand jury. He wrote: “[T]he whole theory of . . . [the grand jury’s] function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.


“Scalia maintained that the grand jury’s independence from the judicial branch is revealed through the “scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised.” Therefore, because the courts do not have supervisory authority over the grand jury, the Court decided that the Tenth Circuit exceeded its authority when it required the prosecutor to disclose substantially exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.”


http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=clevstlrev


Some states have their own laws requiring prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence, but if such laws exist in Missouri I have not been able to find them. If no such laws are on the books in Missouri, I would question why the prosecutor would divulge information which he has no obligation to disclose and which would jeopardize his case.


It is possible that the leaks come from a source other than the actual grand jury proceedings.

there is no constitutional duty for the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence

unless the grand jury asks for it