Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I believe that is exactly why the DA brought this case to the grand jury. The biggest criticism of this grand jury is that this case was even brought to them.

Paul G. Cassell, professor of criminal law, criminal procedure, and crime victims' rights at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and past U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah from 2002 to 2007, says that the Ferguson grand jury process was fair. Take your argument up with him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...cess-was-fair/

The DA brought the case to the grand jury as the completion of his dog and pony show.

And Justice Scalia - one of the dudes on the Supreme Court - happens to agree with me:

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, 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.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

As do many other legal scholars whose opinions you can find through Google.

On edit: I find the Think Progress headline to be deceptive because it makes it seem as if Justice Scalia spoke specifically about the Michael Brown case. He did not. This is his opinion on the function and purpose of a Grand Jury.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

The DA brought the case to the grand jury as the completion of his dog and pony show.

And Justice Scalia - one of the dudes on the Supreme Court - happens to agree with me:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

As do many other legal scholars whose opinions you can find through Google.

It seems to me that you're mixing up the right of a suspect to testify before a grand jury with the right of a DA to call him as a witness. As noted in the Federal Jury grand jury instructions linked above:

It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused ...

Unfortunately, there was nothing usual about this case. There was rioting, looting and gunfire in the streets due to the "hands up, don't shoot" meme created by people who didn't see the shooting (read the article) and subsequently also offered up by "witnesses" to the grand jury.

Like it or not, given the evidence in this case, the DA had two choices - not bringing it to the grand jury (as he didn't believe that there was probable cause) or bringing it before the grand jury as he did due to public pressure. I'm guessing you'd be bitching even louder if he did the former rather than the latter.

[Gusjay Gupta]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It seems to me that you're mixing up the right of a suspect to testify before a grand jury with the right of a DA to call him as a witness. As noted in the Federal Jury grand jury instructions linked above:

It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused ...

Unfortunately, there was nothing usual about this case. There was rioting, looting and gunfire in the streets due to the "hands up, don't shoot" meme created by people who didn't see the shooting (read the article) and subsequently also offered up by "witnesses" to the grand jury.

Like it or not, given the evidence in this case, the DA had two choices - not bringing it to the grand jury (as he didn't believe that there was probable cause) or bringing it before the grand jury as he did due to public pressure. I'm guessing you'd be bitching even louder if he did the former rather than the latter.

I'm mixing up nothing. But you certainly don't seem to have an understanding of what Scalia said. Do you know what "exculpatory" means? Seriously.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Gusjay Gupta

I'm mixing up nothing. But you certainly don't seem to have an understanding of what Scalia said. Do you know what "exculpatory" means? Seriously.

I do indeed. Scalia said they don't have a right to testify or to exculpatory evidence. Scalia didn't say that these are not allowed in a grand jury process (nor does the instructions to Federal Grand juries nor the analysis of the law professor and Federal Judge I linked to.) The right of a defendant and the discretion of the DA are two different things. What's so hard to understand about that?