Update on the wrong law instructions to the Ferguson grand jury

Lawrence O'Donnell and his MSNBC staff discovered and broke the story about the Ferguson grand jury being given the wrong instructions on the law they were told to apply in deciding whether to indict Darren Wilson.

O'Donnell has requested answers, and District Attorney McCulloch's office has finally acknowledged the error.  

This is the problem with using a grand jury to "sort of" try the case, instead of just presenting the case for indictment and asking the grand jury to approve it.    Given all the conflicting evidence to a group of jurors, allowing the accused to mount a defense, without having rules of testimony, an adversarial process, cross-examinations, and a judge to oversee the fairness of the trial and to make sure that the jurors are properly instructed on the law, then you get results like you've gotten here.

And, though we know less what went on because they aren't releasing the transcript, the case of Eric Garner in Staten Island seems to have been handled in much the same way:   all the evidence, multiple witnesses testifying, including the accused officer, no attorneys, no judge -- and the failure to return an indictment in what was an even more open and shut case of, at the least, manslaughter.   As far as we know, this jury was not given the wrong law, but they were given only two options for an indictment:   murder or manslaughter.   The lesser unlawful endangerment was not a choice they had.

If there were a judge in the Ferguson case, s/he would have instructed the jury on the law.   If somehow s/he had given them the wrong law, then it should have been declared a mistrial, or at least overturned on appeal.   In a grand jury, there is no judge and not even any appeal -- because the purpose is only to decide whether it should be brought to a trial..    Then you have all these elements of a real trial, not the sham cover to let the DA weasel out of his responsibility.

Ralph