Ferguson Grand Jury Faced Mass of Evidence, Much of It Conflicting

[cali]

<snip>

Officer Wilson’s version of events was just one part of a vast catalog of testimony and other evidence that the grand jurors absorbed during the three months that they heard the case. Yet it appeared to have helped convince the jurors, a group of nine whites and three African-Americans, that the officer had committed no crime when he killed Mr. Brown. On Monday, the announcement that there was no indictment set off violent protests, burning and looting throughout the beleaguered St. Louis suburb of Ferguson.

Most grand jury proceedings are swift and simple: a few witnesses are called, the prosecutor makes the case for an indictment and the jurors vote.

But the grand jury in the Wilson case met for an extraordinarily long session, hearing what the prosecutor said was “absolutely everything” that could be considered testimony or evidence in the case. While what happens in the grand jury room is almost always kept secret, Mr. McCulloch insisted on making the transcripts of the proceedings available to the public immediately after the session concluded. Unlike most defendants, Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

The grand jurors in the Wilson case met in a St. Louis County courthouse on 25 separate days. They heard 70 hours of testimony from roughly 60 witnesses. And they confronted a jumble of forensics reports, police radio logs, medical documents and tapes of F. B. I interviews with bystanders.

After three months of hearing evidence, the grand jury began its deliberations last Friday at 3:04 p.m. By midday on Monday, they were finished.

Though the encounter between Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown took place in a matter of minutes, eyewitness testimony revealed an infinite array of subtle but crucial variations. Witness after witness took the stand to describe the same two minutes and agreeing on the broadest strokes: how it began with the struggle at the window and the first shots, and ended with Dorian Johnson, who had been walking with Mr. Brown, shouting “they killed him” and crowds descending on the scene.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0

[JoePhilly]

1. It was a trial, with 1 defense attorney, and no prosecutor.

[Bragi]

2. And no cross examination of witnesses... /nt

[justiceischeap]

3. Were experts brought in to testify?

I haven't had a chance to read over any of the stories in reference to the document dump.

[JoePhilly]

8. As I understand it, they brought in some of the folks you'd bring to a trial, but they did not ...

... actually put on a CASE. They just had them talk.

Usually a prosecutor builds a "case" ... they arrange the pieces in a specific fashion, to get an indictment.

That does not appear to be what happened here. Basically, the prosecutor said ... here's a bunch of stuff, you figure out if anything happened.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

7. The one thing I "do" like about a grand jury

speaking, generally, is that the jurors get to ask questions, and apparently many were asked. I have served on a regular jury years ago, and I so wanted to ask questions!

[libtodeath]

5. It was a sham as far as I am concerned

there is plenty of evidence to bring charges on,the prosecutor should face dereliction of duty charges.

[0rganism]

6. which is NOT usually the role of a grand jury

Typically the grand jury hears a simple presentation of evidence that a potential crime was committed from the prosecutor, and that's it. Then the grand jury almost always indicts, within a week not 3 months, and the case goes to trial where the typical adversarial justice system comes into play and the facts are decided with the help of a not-so-grand jury.

The "prosecutor"'s behavior in this case is full of irregularity, and his strong connections to the police as well as his tendency to behave as a defense attorney instead of doing his job have corrupted this decision beyond all hope of redemption.

[sarisataka]

9. Swamp them with information

and make it about guilt vs. innocence rather than a case for indictment.

[sadoldgirl]

11. and I might add: The self-defense necessary for police.

[stevenleser]

10. Didn't notice you posted this before me but I found it compelling of the need for a trial.

There were conflicting statements. That's why you need a trial and cross examination to sort it out.