If that cop* had been indicted do we really think he would have been convicted?

[bluestateguy]

*I refuse to use his name.

And it's not to excuse the failure to indict. The grand jury made a bad decision and the DA is a dishonest and opportunistic crook.

But let's also look ahead and imagine that the Grand Jury, against Bob McCullough's wishes, had indicted. Then what?

I expect that the DA would have put forth a very bare bones, desultory and unenthusiastic prosecution. The fix would still be in. I could see him agreeing to put as many white good ole boys on the jury as possible, with only minimal black representation. And an all around half-assed questioning and a weak cross examination of witnesses. That cop would be acquitted and we'd be right back where we are now.

[Blue_Tires]

1. Yeah, that's the bull in the china shop nobody is mentioning...

It was just really strange to see McCullough's antics in trying to "argue" the prosecution's case, because he could not have been more blatant...

[Hoyt]

2. I really doubt you'd get 12 jurors to convict. At least one would be a racist, probably more.

[NV Whino]

3. No

But at least there would have been a chance at some justice. And that cop* would have been uncomfortable for some time to come. And possibly kept off active duty.

[Kalidurga]

4. A ruling to indict shouldn't ever be made on

what they think the next jury will do.

[Chemisse]

6. Maybe, maybe not.

But it would've been a public proceeding. And that counts for a lot.

[TBF]

7. At least they'd have a trial -

and a chance for civil damages. Since it didn't get past a grand jury I wouldn't think they have much of a chance now.

[Spazito]

8. It seems McCulloch certainly thought that was a possibility hence his actions to...

control events to ensure wilson would not face a trial.

[JI7]

9. i actually think even if they had video of Wilson clearly in the wrong

some people would still not convict him .

[KingCharlemagne]

10. The DA's office and\or law enforcement were tainting any future jury pool by its use of selective

pro-Wilson leaks. What, you think the release of the cigar store incident (note my studied avoidance of the word 'robbery' or McCulloch's 'stealing') by the Ferguson PD happened purely b/c they were responding to a non-existent FOIA request from the media? The entire process from start to finish has been to slander the dead victim who can no longer speak in his own defense and leak the D.A.'s case so that Wilson could build his cover story around the facts.

[cheyanne]

11. McColloch is just the front man for a group that would not let a cop be indicted.

"Had the prosecution desired an indictment against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, the presentment would have taken an hour, maybe two, and there would have been a true bill by close of business the next day, well before Michael Brown had been laid to rest. The grand jury isn’t the venue to present “all the evidence.” That’s what trials are for. The grand jury serves a very limited function, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists so that there is probable cause to proceed to trial."

This is from Simple Justice blog of Scott Greenberg. It's at http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/#more-22871.

He presents McColloch as trying to pawn off on the grand jury the decision that he as prosecutor should make.

Here is another lawyer blog at http://herculesandtheumpire.com/ that asks lawyers to comment on whether they would have indicted Wilson. Many interesting views. One that seems common to most prosecutors is that it is a two-step process to indict. First, the grand jury determines if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. At this point the prosecutor has to decide if there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction.

In other words he evaluates the "evidence" to see if it is strong enough to convince a jury. This evaluation could involve the veracity of differing witnesses, the ambiguity of the physical evidence. True, if he believes that he does have a strong case to go to trial, he may try to influence them. But he has to take into account that while he feels someone is guilty and the evidence is not strong, he cannot in good faith, prosecute knowing that the person is "legally" guilty. (I hope I haven't screwed up the argument too much in retelling.)

It seems that McColloch gamed the system.

[moondust]

13. Another lawyer,

Mike Papantonio, was on the Ed Show today and also believes McCulloch basically stage managed the whole thing to get the outcome he wanted. He said it's a known legal trick to dump a huge load of data on a legally inexperienced grand jury in order to confuse them.

[csziggy]

12. I think the difference is that a trial would have satisfied people more

Think about the Trayvon Martin case. Having the trial, with all the testimony out there for public review, watching the jury deliberate, let people believe there was some semblence of due process.

This grand jury proceeding is occult and secretive. People were upset by the slow drip of apparently deliberately selected leakage of information. The entire thing stinks of back room, closed door deal making.

And the same as in the Martin case, being able to see the incompetence of the prosecutors out in the open could have defused the anger.

I know I am as angry at Angela Corey as I am at George Zimmerman for the lack of justice for Trayvon Martin.