Thread: Ferguson (opinion piece, please give your opinion and discuss)

Tierhund, I see that you have strong opinions regarding this case. That's understandable. Cases of this scope and magnitude often illicit strong opinions. However, I noticed in your first post on this issue, you mention a judge determined that the case was not strong enough to go to trial, and therefore it was dismissed. The indictment process in Missouri is not unlike that in most of the states. A felony charge must be brought via an indictment. Indictments are handed down by the Grand Jury. Grand Juries are convened by the prosecutor. The Grand Jurors are randomly selected from the community as a standard jury is. However, unlike the actual trial proceeding, a judge is not involved in a Grand Jury's normal proceedings. In addition, Grand Jury proceedings are conducted in secret, the accused does not have the right to speak, but is allowed to answer prosecutor's or Grand Jurors' questions if they are summonsed. Anything they say to the Grand Jury can be used against them at trial, if an indictment is handed down. The accused is also not allowed the right to have counsel present at the Grand Jury. Defense Counsel is barred from speaking, unless invited to speak by the Grand Jury itself. That almost never happens. On top of this, the accused is not allowed to present their own evidence. Only the prosecutor is granted the right to present evidence. Therefore, the Grand Jury proceeding is not about debating the facts of the case. Rather, the purpose of convening a Grand Jury is to present the prosecution's facts to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause. Probable cause is a much lower standard than the burden of proof at a criminal trial. It simply means that, based on the evidence at hand, it is more likely than not that the accused committed the offense in question. Therefore, when eyewitness testimony is contradictory, it's very hard for the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment...because it makes the evidence much less likely to succeed at trial. That is to say, that if the Darren Wilson case moved to trial, it is very unlikely that the case would succeed, because the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson satisfied all of the elements of First Degree murder, or manslaughter, if that was the charge which the Grand Jury chose to indict him on. Reasonable doubt is a significant hurdle for the prosecutor to over come. If one element of the crime is not satisfied, the jury must acquit. In cases of this nature the defense of Self defense is an affirmative defense. That means that if there is evidence demonstrating that a reasonable officer, under like circumstances felt that his or her life was in danger, then he or she was justified in using deadly force to defend themselves. This same defense is used by civilian defendants as well. Once the prosecutor has presented his or her evidence to the Grand Jury, then the Grand Jury must deliberate and vote on whether or not to Indict the accused. A certain number of Grand Jurors must agree in order for an indictment to be handed down. I don't know Missouri's statutory requirement, as I'm not licensed to practice law in that state. In Texas, the requirement is for 9 Grand Jurors to vote for indictment. If the prerequisite number of Grand Jurors voting in favor of indictment cannot be procured, then there will be no indictment. A judge is not even present during the Grand Jury proceedings. Therefore, a judge made no determination as to whether this case had the potential to succeed for trial or not. Moreover, the Grand Jurors were chosen at random before this case was even on the docket. There were black Grand Jurors on this panel and white Grand Jurors. However, the number may not have been equal. However, it has always been that a division of the vote from a Grand Jury will not be shown, as Grand Jury proceedings are conducted in secret. In fact, in the State of Texas, the accused doesn't even have the right to know that the Grand Jury is even considering whether or not to indict them. So, the fact that there are many indictments has no bearing on the specifics of this case. The jurors saw the evidence, as presented, and were not convinced that the evidence was efficient to establish probable cause. And, therefore, no indictment was handed down. Now, while it is true that in the past this system has been discriminatory, to claim that no progress has been made with respect to diversity and civil rights baffles me. Blacks are no longer precluded from jury dutywhich includes serving on Grand Juries. Furthermore as per Batson v. Kentucky, a juror cannot be excluded from jury service on the basis of race alone. And that's for a regular trial. Grand Jurors are pre-selected by lottery and cannot be excluded by the prosecutor, and as previously mentioned, the defense counsel has no right to appear or make arguments in the proceedings at all. So, we have made progress with the jury system. We also have made progress in race relations. I won't deny that there are still divisions between the races. But, to claim that if one simply doesn't view race as being an element of Officer Wilson's actions is blinded by white privilege which is some amorphous form of institutionalized racism smacks of a dangerous logical flaw. Namely, a suppressed correlative. You have said if I argue that race doesn't apply to the case at hand within the limits of the incident in question then I am racist. Just because some who believe that race wasn't a factor might be racists, it doesn't mean all who hold that belief are. It's difficult to make an argument when faced with that sort of absolute statement. There is no room for presenting a dispute, and it applies a label based on the suppressed correlative. In other words, you have defined the argument in such a way that all things we might say are not applicable to this case, are applicable o this case. I respect your opinion, but I thought these issues needed to be addressed. It's important for us to be able to exchange our ideas. Also, it is important to ensure that our understanding of the Grand Jury proceedings are accurate. Otherwise, it devalues the valid arguments and opinions you have to offer.