I have served on a County Grand Jury.

[MineralMan]

Mostly, we did not deal with criminal cases during the year I was a member. We did, however, on two occasions. What I remember most clearly was that the District Attorney's representative decided what evidence to bring for consideration. It was clear from the beginning what that attorney wanted us to do. When we, as members of the Grand Jury began to use our privilege to ask our own questions, the Assistant District Attorney expressed his dislike for that very clearly. He wanted to just present his case, have us indict, and be done with it.

He tried very hard to control the process. Unfortunately for him, we knew what our rights were in such proceedings and exercised them. He was not amused, and even tried to get the supervising judge to tell us we couldn't do what we were doing. The judge, who was the one who told us what we could and could not do in the first place, put the Assistant District Attorney in his place immediately.

Grand Juries are all different, I suppose, but we saw clearly that what we were seeing was not the entire body of evidence, but only the evidence the D.A.'s office chose to present. The process is front-loaded.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. If the prosecutor wants an indictment he'll usually get one.

As one former New York judge, Sol Wachtler, said, “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutors so requested.” It is totally front-loaded. The prosecutor presents the evidence he wants the grand jury to hear.

[MineralMan]

5. And if he doesn't want an indictment, he can do that, too.

the GJ can't order evidence to be presented. It can only work with what it sees.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Bingo.

Looks like the Ferguson grand jury got a whole buttload of conflicting evidence - the stuff that would be presented at a trial. I don't think that prosecutor wanted an indictment (which is only a finding of probable cause), because the way the grand jury system works, if they really want a bill they'll get one.

[MineralMan]

10. Exactly. If the prosecutor acts as the defendant's attorney,

there will be no bill. Personally, I doubt that this prosecutor would bring a strong case to trial, either, if there were an indictment. Any prosecutor can ensure that a not guilty verdict will be delivered, too. That's easy.

[jeff47]

2. Which is kinda the point

The grand jury is set up so that if everything is in the prosecutor's favor, is there enough to proceed?

The trial jury then decides guilt or innocence in a situation that (theoretically) favors the defendant.

[TexasProgresive]

3. So if the prosecutor wants a no bill he just limits the evidence

the Grand Jury gets to consider.

[jeff47]

4. Or presents mostly evidence the defense would use at trial. (nt)

[MineralMan]

6. The point is that the prosecutor decides which evidence to present.

Nobody else decides. The Grand Jury can only see what is brought to them.

[jeff47]

16. Nope. For example, these grand jurors apparently judged which witnesses were reliable

based on TV reporting. Which is why it was kinda important that the TV was claiming Brown died much closer to the police car than he actually did.

[Nye Bevan]

7. If the prosecutor had presented only the "eyewitnesses" who claimed that Wilson stood over Brown,

and shot him execution style, but had not presented the forensics which discredited such testimony, there would indeed have been an indictment. But I am not sure that this would have been the right thing to do.

[MineralMan]

9. I wasn't in the Grand Jury room.

I didn't see any of it, nor did I hear the prosecutor present evidence. None of us were. I'm simply saying that the prosecutor can present whatever evidence he or she thinks will get the desired result. Grand Jury hearings are not trials. There's no equal opportunity for prosecution and defense. Only one person decides which evidence will be presented. Control is in the prosecutor's hands. At trial, both sides have an equal opportunity, but even there, the prosecutor decides which evidence is presented against the defendant.

It's an enormous responsibility, and has the potential for making justice impossible, if the prosecutor wishes to do that.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Well, we know in this case he presented *all* the evidence.

Because it has all been published online.

Normally, a case like this which the prosecutor sees is not winnable will never go before a grand jury; unless the prosecutor thinks that the proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is there (which is what is needed at the trial stage) he generally will not bother to seek an indictment. That's why almost every case that goes to a grand jury results in an indictment; if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is certainly probable cause. In this case, however, the prosecutor did not feel able to drop charges without going to the grand jury.

[MineralMan]

12. He has presented all the evidence that was presented

to the Grand Jury. That is not necessarily all the evidence, though.

[Hekate]

13. A definite point. nt

[Nye Bevan]

14. If there is a witness who came forward but whose testimony is not in the transcript,

I expect that we will be hearing from that witness soon enough.

[MineralMan]

15. Do you? I don't, necessarily.

There is a Federal investigation, of course. It is not finished, I believe.

See, my point is that we only know things second or third-hand about this case. I know that I'm not going to read through all of the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury. I have neither time nor any belief that my reading of it will make a difference.

Bottom line for me is that being accused of stealing some cigars and pushing a clerk is not a capital offense. A cop shot Michael Brown several times and killed him. Michael Brown was executed without any due process whatsoever. That bothers me, you see. Lots of things bother me that I cannot do anything about, other than to say they bother me.

It appears to me that young black men are shot by police without an opportunity to defend themselves. When that happens, the police are rarely held to account. There is a disparity between the number of white men and black men who are killed by police. I'm interested in that disparity. I find it suspicious. I'm thinking that racism is involved. I'm sure you can understand that thinking.