Predictable lack of justice in Ferguson, MO

The Grand Jury's decision not to bring an indictment of any sort against Office Darren Wilson was totally predictable.

It was predictable from the moment the governor refused to appoint a special prosecutor, meaning that St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch would be in charge.   Here are the reasons he should not have been allowed to have that responsibility:

1.   Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has a history of never seeking an indictment of a police officer for killing an unarmed person.  This is now the fifth such case that he has had jurisdiction over, and his score for an indictment is 0 for 5.

2.  McCulloch has a working relationship with the officers in this department, including Officer Darren Wilson.

3.  McCulloch's own father was a policemen who was killed by an African-American man in the line of duty.   McCulloch was 12 years old.   He thinks that does not have any bearing on his handling of such cases, even though he does acknowledge that his father inspired his work in criminal justice.    Look at the parallel:   Wilson says he fear for his life if he allowed Brown to get close enough to hit him again.  Wilson appears to be about the age that he might have a 12 year old son.

4.  McCulloch could have brought an indictment himself on the basis of evidence.   But -- under the false guise of complete transparency and fairness -- he chose to bring it to a grand jury.

5.  He further made the decision not to present a case for indictment but to present the grand jury with the details of every testimony, every scrap of evidence, every detail of forensic evidence -- for them to sort out and come to their own conclusion.  Experienced prosecutors say they have never seen this happen before.  The prosecutor is expected to present the case, not just dump data on the grand jury.

6.   A grand jury has one duty:  to decide if there is probable cause to charge an accused person with a crime and bring it to a jury trial.   It's job is not to decide guilt or innocence;  only to determine there is sufficient cause to have a trial.   It is a very low level of proof needed;  just probable cause to warrant a trial.

7.  It's important to understand what the grand jury process is.   It is not an adversarial process, where you have a prosecutor and defense lawyers examine and cross-examine witnesses.  There are no lawyers except the prosecutors.   The victim's side of the story does not get told, unless the prosecutor chooses to tell it.   And in Michael Brown's case, Prosecutor McCulloch chose not to do it.   Michael Brown and his family's interests were not represented in this grand jury process.   

8.  That is what makes so highly questionable McCulloch's decision to allow Office Wilson himself to testify for four hours before the grand jury.   Realize the significance of this:   the defendant -- the officer who admittedly killed Michael Brown -- was allowed to tell his story without an opposing attorney to cross-examine his testimony.

9.  Every signal that has been sent by the local police and the prosecutor has been that there would be no indictment -- from the early leaks from the investigation, the release to the media of the completely unrelated convenience store robbery, the further leaks during the three month grand jury proceedings.   Clearly McCulloch did not want an indictment, and by not making the case to the grand jury, he signaled to them that he didn't.   They must have realized that they were being used.

10.  And then the long, drawn out police "preparations" for a night of violence after the announcement.   The fact that, having sent signals that they expected a violent community reaction, McCulloch then scheduled his announcement for 8 pm.   Why wait until night time when, according to Ferguson police, that's when they expect violence and rioting to happen?

11.   McCulloch's 30 minute presentation was itself -- in the words of one commentator -- "a defense lawyer's presentation, not a prosecutor's presentation."   He began by blaming the social media and the 24 hour tv news cycle for spreading false information.   He rambled on overlong telling how wide was the range of conflicting testimony of witnesses -- without ever once mentioning Officer Wilson's testimony.    When asked about this by a reporter, he dismissed that, saying something like we didn't put much importance on that because he was the one involved.   Yeah?   Then why let him have a four hour opportunity to sway the emotions of the grand jury -- without only the ordinary citizens of the grand jury to question him?

12.  Even more disturbing was the fact that McCulloch did not address the two major questions that go directly to whether it was a justified killing:

   a.  How far was Michael Brown from Office Wilson when Wilson fired the shots that killed him?   That should be one crucial question;  it wasn't mentioned.

   b.  What was the evidence that justified killing the unarmed Michael Brown?    Self-defense?   Brown was unarmed and running away, then turned.  Reports vary about whether he was charging toward the officer or simply turning to surrender with his arms up.    But isn't that discrepancy on such a crucial question reason enough to have a trial ?    Did Officer Wilson say he feared for his own life -- or that he feared Brown would harm others?    Nothing about that.   [Later:  we did learn that Wilson did say he feared for his life.]

SO:   This was a pretty complete travesty of justice -- and totally predictable.

Now, mind, I am not saying that I know what the verdict of an actual trial would be.   It might very well be "not guilty."  It is not just the non-indictment that it so upsatisfactory;   it is the lack of a fair process of determining whether there should be a trial that I am so sure was a miscarriage of justice.

Ralph