To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

What's the point of having a jury do the indictment, then, if they're essentially deciding whether or not he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Why not just indict and have a trial jury...?

I'm really not understanding the US legal system... it seems that you're put on trial twice, with both juries deciding about exactly the same matter?

It's deciding if there's a possibility that wrongdoing was done. If they can't find that, why send it to criminal court and waste money and detain an innocent man?

We don't have it here, but I'm a fan of it (well, we do, but it's not determined by common citizens).

It's another checks and balances so people can't just send anyone to criminal court with little evidence, or that a single government official can do the same (say, a president).

Pardon me, I'm still not 100% on this whole indictment process. I thought the point was to examine whether the prosecution had a case, not to examine the balance of evidence? Evidence that supports the defence doesn't need to be presented at all at this stage.

I understand the arguments about cost, but for me and probably most other people, justice is more important than financial concerns.

Right. The state has to prove a crime occurred.

At least four people in the grand jury determined that there was insufficient evidence that a crime happened.

That sounds like something that should happen at a trial. Surely pre-trial things like this just need to determine if there is a prima facie case?

I'm sure you and everyone would love it if you're indicted, arrested, charged, and locked up for a crime that you didn't actually commit (due to no evidence pointing to you committing it).

It'd be little consolation that a jury found you not guilty in a criminal court after all of that.

Yeah, and there's no case here. Hence, why it didn't go further.

There always needs to be evidence that you committed a crime for it to go to criminal court. Killing someone in a clear case of self-defense isn't a crime.

I feel grand jury literally had the eyes of the whole world upon them; they even had the AG of the US visit/investigate the situation. I also feel that Brown's friends should be charged with perjury and inciting a riot with their false accusations. We had a saying growing up that fits Ferguson; "Don't confuse me with the truth".

There is evidence, there are multiple witness accounts that contradict Wilson, even if you discount the obviously biased one.

Occasionally people are found not guilty after a trial. Obviously ideally everyone charged with a crime would actually be guilty. A functioning justice system requires that sometimes people who only might be guilty will be charged. If we only charged people who were already looking like dead certs before cross examination then there would be far more people walking around having got away with murder. I do of course believe that people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and I think it is worth letting some murderers walk free to prevent accidentally convicting anyone, but a mere trial is something else altogether.

In a case like this one, Wilson would probably be bailed.


Again, this isn't a clear case of self defence. Most of the witnesses offer cases that contradict Wilson's. It might well have been self defence.

I really think you should take a look at the evidence because right now you're just making yourself look silly. I know you have quite strong right-wing opinions and everyone hates challenging their pre-conceived notions, but you are on the same intellectual level as the people talking about the harmless, unarmed college student.

This is what one attorney had to say about the issue:

Do you really believe that the prosecutor should charge people with a crime and take them to trial merely because there there is some possibility that the jury might find them guilty even though he does not believe them to be guilty?

Here's a rather trivial example. Suppose you are given a counterfeit $10 bill in change and don't realize it is counterfeit and then later take it to the bank and attempt to deposit it in your account. When the bank determines that it is counterfeit, confiscates the money, and turns it over to the US Secret Service (as they will), should the federal prosecutor file charges against you for attempting to pass counterfeit money merely because a jury might find you guilty even if he himself is quite sure that it was an innocent error on your part?

For that matter, how about those involved in the protests in Ferguson since the shooting. Should the police just arrest everyone involved on the chance that they might have looted a store or burned it to the ground and let the jury decide who was innocent?

Prosecutors have discretion for a reason. If a prosecutor were to file charges against anyone for an appearance that something might be wrong, the justice system would really bog down and most of the larger and larger numbers of defendants would have to spend their life savings and then go into debt to defend themselves from bogus charges that the prosecutor and police knew to be wrong.

I can guarantee you that if we took away that discretion from the prosecutor, the levels of injustice in this country would skyrocket far beyond anything we can even imagine.

Pot smoker, no. Shoplifter, yes -- he would not have come to the attention of the police if he had not robbed that store.

If the citizens of Ferguson want Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Fife to maintain the peace, then they had better start acting like the citizens of Mayberry.

But if instead they continue to act like punks, thugs, thieves, and all-around troublemakers, they will continue to have a police force that is on edge and ready to use deadly force whenever possible.

Ferguson has the police force it deserves.

@Eric - Neither of those examples are comparable.

Accidentally acquiring a $10 note is not comparable to murder or manslaughter.

Being near people who are looting is not comparable to multiple witnesses saying you shot a man who was not a threat to you.

It is important to consider both the gravity of Wilson's alleged crime and the strength of the evidence against him, which I note you didn't feel the need to review before you declared him not guilty.

Didn't say that it was. What I was saying that if the prosecution has no discretion about whether or not to prosecute what might be interpreted to be a crime, then there are going to be incredibly many prosecutions over the most minor issues.

How about self defense? If someone breaks into your home in a home invasion and you shoot them to defend yourself and your family, should you go to trial? Don't you think that the prosecutor should have any discretion? Should he be requited to do everything possible to convict the person for murder when the person rightfully defended himself?



If the prosecutor MUST prosecute every instance that someone, somewhere may think that a crime may have occurred, then he would still have to prosecute each and every one of them.



Other witnesses did say that he posed a threat. Are you saying that the prosecutor should automagically believe those who say that he wasn't a threat rather than those who said he was a threat? Keep in mind that some of those who claimed that he wasn't a threat reportedly changed what they were telling the police after the autopsy clearly showed them to be wrong.

And if it goes to trial, the prosecutor might present those who claim there was no threat but you can bet that the defense would put those who claimed that he was a threat on the witness stand. Do you think that the jury will arbitrarily choose to believe the prosecution witnesses but not the defense witnesses?

Do you think that the jury won't have plenty of reasonable doubt?

You are arguing against a straw man.

I did not say the prosecution should have no discretion, and I certainly did not say that they should prosecute whenever someone may think that a crime may have occurred. They should only prosecute when it is in the public interest. One such case might be when witnesses say that a man was not threatening a police officer when he was shot dead. You compared that to being tricked by a forged note, implying (if not explicitly stating) that you believe the two to be comparable.

Sometimes it is necessary to prosecute someone who shoots a home invader. It depends on the evidence. Again, straw man. Whatever is in the public interest - it's not in the public interest to prosecute people who shoot in self defence, but it is to prosecute people who shoot burglars who get caught and try to run away.

As I understand it, two witnesses have said that he was a threat. One claimed in his police interview that he was stood 100 yards away. There were about 30 witnesses. I haven't read about half of them, but I'm sure if they supported Wilson then LNH would have cherry picked them by now.

So I think the word of 28 people versus 3 people is a good prima facie case. Even if you throw out the biased one, it's still a strong case.


Again, you are arguing against a straw man.

I believe the purpose of indictment is not to work out if there is reasonable doubt, merely whether there is a prima facie case in the public interest. The mention of reasonable doubt is therefore a red herring.

I think the balance of evidence warrants a trial where the witnesses can be cross examined, their stories can really be challenged, and the jury can come to a verdict. I think the verdict would probably be "not guilty", but then justice would have been done.

I thought it was about justice. Prosecuting someone merely to placate a crowd is hardly justice.



LNH?



28 versus 3? Are you intentionally interpreting the words of the 28 in such a way to support your case?


Again, you are arguing against a straw man.

I believe the purpose of indictment is not to work out if there is reasonable doubt, merely whether there is a prima facie case in the public interest. The mention of reasonable doubt is therefore a red herring.[/quote]

I'm glad you aren't a prosecutor.

The purpose of the grand jury is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to put someone on trial for a crime. It is NOT about some new-age public interest. The public interest has nothing to do with the matter.



Justice is subjecting the officer to a million dollars or more in attorney fees for the privilege of defending his life?

Why don't you start a campaign to do away with grand juries? After all, you seem to be convinced that they serve no purpose at all other than some nebulous "public interest" that has nothing to do with the justice system.

The witnesses that contradict Wilson are themselves contradicted by the physical evidence.

Hence, you go with the physical evidence.

The witnesses don't contradict self-defense anyway.