Shadow Trial: Prosecutors in Ferguson violated our right to an open criminal justice system.
In the 1980 case of Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared that the press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials. In the words of Justice William Brennan, “Open trials are bulwarks of our free and democratic government: Public access to court proceedings is one of the numerous ‘checks and balances’ of our system, because ‘contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.’ ”
This right of open trials belongs not just to the accused but to all of us. It is, the Supreme Court said in the 1986 case Press Enterprise v. Superior Court, “a shared right of the accused and the public, the common concern being the assurance of fairness.” And while those accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a “speedy and open trial,” they do not, the court has said, have a right to a private trial.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/ferguson_grand_jury_investigation_a_shadow_trial_violates_the_public_s_right.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
When did so many of us (that's the Royal us, by the by) accept that what happened to the Brown family, and us by extension, was okay with these proceedings? I get why the racists are loving it, it gives them, in their minds, carte blanche--they get to watch black people get killed with no consequences. But does our judicial system mean so little to us that even DU'ers are proclaiming that this was fair when it so obviously wasn't? Can the one's that believe that this should have gone to trial sue? Can Brown's parent's sue because they had their Constitutional rights violated by this scam of a grand jury?
It's disheartening to see so many long-time DU'ers consider what McCulloch did as fair (and in another breath proclaim Snowden a hero). Let alone that legally, constitutionally, this family, and us, have a right to a public trial.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The legal standard for a grand jury to indict a Defendant is probable cause. That is the entire point of the grand jury proceeding, to determine whether there is probable cause to support a bill.
probable cause has nothing to do with this case? 
I don't know where you're getting your info from (sounds like you are pulling it out of your ass), but you have no clue.
What manner of horrifying legal system are you pretending we have? No, there is no legal or constitutional right for anyone to have anyone charged for anything prompting a public trial WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.
Do you not get that there MUST be sufficient evidentiary reason to charge anyone with a crime and try them for it? That both legally and constitutionally NO ONE can be charged with a crime prompting a public trial without probable cause that a crime has even been committed and that this is a GOOD thing? Why on God's green earth would anyone want to live in a country where anyone without sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to begin with be subjected to criminal charges for anything? Bad enough that half the states in the country still use grand juries that are nothing more than secret star chambers to manufacture probable cause when it doesn't exist or doesn't exist in sufficient quantity in order for a jury vote to indict them resulting in anyone being legally permitted to be railroaded into having criminal charges filed against them and subjected to a criminal trial - by the government.
That's the kind of horrifying legal system that guarantees that anyone can be charged with any crime just because the government finds you bothersome. Imagine how that would work for minorities, whistle blowers, labor organizers, environmentalists and yes, PROTESTERS who are exactly the sort of people that grand juries are used to "find" probable cause. And that's exactly how they've been used and are still used by the government against the very people anyone here would be screaming and pulling their hair out over someone being so legally and secretly railroaded. Let's not forget that the prosecution works for the state or the US government in the case of federal grand juries.
Railroading anyone into being charged with a crime is exactly what grand juries are DESIGNED to do because there is no fair examination of ALL the available evidence to show probable cause making grand juries secret star chambers used against those very people that anyone here would abhor being railroaded and even legally railroaded. They violate the Sixth Amendment for the right to legal counsel as well as the right to confront and question witnesses. Add to that, hearsay evidence is allowed along with illegally obtained evidence. Anymore, only half the states use them though all the states still have legal provision for their use, and it's that railroading secret star chamber design of them that's is why half the states stopped using them opting for a far more fair legal proceeding like an adversarial preliminary hearing that is overseen by a judge, requires all evidence to be presented and shared by both the prosecution and defense, allows legal counsel for the accused and any witnesses, is held publicly, etc. It is much the same as a pre-trial hearing except that the accused has not been charged with any crime.
Back in the 1980's a popular chief judge, Sol Wachtler, (who said that grand juries could "indict a ham sandwich"
announced that grand juries should be abolished because they were designed and operate as a way to charge anyone with a crime without probable cause and advised the use of an adversarial preliminary hearing where ALL the evidence is examined and overseen by a judge in order to determine whether or not there actually IS probable cause. The adversarial preliminary hearing is what half the states use now and thanks to people like Sol Wachtler why they no longer use grand juries.
Grand juries are a prosecution haven and designed as a secret legal cover to charge anyone with any crime without probable cause especially those very people who are far more likely to be found guilty at trial due to bias - before the civil right era imagine how that went for black people - and those very people the government dislikes... all those people I referenced in the beginning of this post and more. They're a secret legal rubber stamp that can charge anyone with anything. Though the accused may not be found guilty at trial, we all know how bias can play a part in trial results (recall the Memphis Three, the NY Palladium murder case, etc.). Even if found not guilty at trial just imagine what the accused had to suffer including what can be years of jail time before trial finally crawls around to being held.
Just look at how they work: though they are supposed to find whether or not theres is sufficient probable cause to bring criminal charge/s they are designed to charge anyone without any probable cause as first, only that evidence and testimony that is favorable to the prosecution is what the jury is presented without including all that evidence that nullifies the "favorable" which obviously makes that presented "favorable" evidence nothing but a lie. For example, Johnny was chosen out a line up as the man who raped the victim which is the evidence the grand jury receives, except that Johnny has solid irrefutable evidence that he was three states away at the time of the rape, but the prosecution is allowed to not give that information to the jury, and unless this rape case was huge news with evidence leaks in the media for which this alibi evidence was widely discussed (and fairly discussed) the jury is not going to know that Johnny couldn't possibly have been the rapist. Raise your hand if you're ok with this ordinary COMMON and TYPICAL grand jury proceeding. Anyone getting a Duke Lacrosse vibe?
Add to that a grand jury is allowed to see and hear any evidence or testimony that is hearsay and when the questioning by the prosecutor can be designed to make it appear that it is NOT hearsay evidence but actually a blatant lie. Usually, hearsay evidence is given by those people that are part of the prosecution "team" such as POLICE OFFICERS (yes, I said it) that know that the prosecutor doesn't want the jury to realize it's hearsay and will be questioned in such a way and give their testimony in such a way as to make it appear that it was evidence seen, heard or otherwise witnessed by them personally. For example, a police officer that was part of the investigation was told by Sally's neighbor, Jeff, that he (Jeff) overheard Sally tell someone that she killed her husband. But the police officer in giving his testimony would make it appear that HE (the police officer) and Sally's neighbor, Jeff, overheard Sally tell someone she killed her husband. Yes, it's a flat out lie, but who's going to know? The prosecutor who is totally in charge of the grand jury proceedings certainly isn't going to admit it, the police officer that perjured himself certainly isn't, and anyone that knows any differently is sworn to secrecy forever about anything that occurred during the grand jury proceedings.
SCOTUS back in the 1970's ruled that prosecutors can also use evidence that has been illegally obtained. Or illegally planted, but who's going to know? The prosecutor presenting that "evidence" certainly isn't going to divulge that, and the police officer or paid snitch used to obtain it certainly isn't going to either.
Sick to your stomach yet?
In the Brown/Wilson matter McCulloch (who didn't personally prosecute the grand jury case to begin with) didn't have any other choice but to present all the evidence (or what we believe is all the evidence since it's all the grand jury got) and allow the jury to decide because he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He couldn't make the decision himself to not bring charges against Wilson though he knew there was no probable cause because of the uproar that it would be claimed he refused to file charges because he was biased. Of course he wasn't going to make that determination himself which is how over 90% of all criminal cases are decided - the prosecutor alone makes the decision. His only choice at that point was to hand the case over to a grand jury.
But the problem with that was that there was NO evidence to put before the grand jury that was favorable to the prosecution. NONE. ZERO. Every bit of the forensic evidence supported Wilson's version of events. Those eyewitnesses that testified that Brown had his hands up, was kneeling in surrender when Wilson shot him, etc. obviously never saw the incident at all because their interviews with detectives were that bad. For all we know there might be more of them that weren't presented to the grand jury because they were so obviously lying witnesses that saw not one second of the incident. All the witnesses - probably the worst of which was Dorian Johnson (go read his grand jury testimony - which is a study in how to perjure one's self as obviously as possible and that throws Mike Brown under the bus trying to save his own butt from the possibility of prosecution because of his presence during the robbery at the store that he also testifies he was terrified of) were even more unfavorable to the prosecution than a number of the one's that were favorable to Wilson (7 of those witness btw are black).
So, what else could McCulloch possibly do having NO evidence at ALL favorable to the prosecution? Introduce himself to the grand jury, go over procedural rules and lunch times and then say "Well, sorry, we have no evidence at all to show you, coffee and danish being served in the lounge now, Thank you."? When he CAN'T present any evidence favorable to the prosecution because there ISN'T ANY he didn't have any choice but to present what we know they received. And if anyone that's been so adamant about Wilson being guilty hasn't bothered to look at that evidence now that it's been made public you'd see that for yourselves (which is exactly why it is being ignored).
Further complicating the issue was the popularity of the case and stunning amount of press coverage all of the jurors would have been paying attention to. Grand jury jurors are not forbidden from seeing any media or researching themselves anything about the case because they serve for a term of a specific amount of time and handle every case put before them during their term with no one having any way to know what cases they're going to be, so there is no rule that they can't immerse themselves in media or research about any case they handle.
Grand jury jurors also have broad powers in that not only can they question a witness themselves and can ask them anything they want that the witness must answer they can demand from the prosecutor to see or hear any evidence they want and must receive it. In most cases a grand jury investigates they don't know anything about the case because the media didn't think it warranted any coverage and so wouldn't know what evidence to demand unless it was evidence they didn't receive that they knew they should have (ex: an autopsy report concerning a homicide case - the jurors would know that one existed and would demand to see it if for some reason the prosecutor kept it from them). The jurors in this case already knew what evidence should exist because of the extensive media coverage constantly talking about the incident including excruciating detail of the scene which is where that forensic evidence would come from.
This should scare the crap out of anyone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Criticism
Limited constitutional rights
The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated.[41]
Individuals subject to grand jury proceedings do not have a Sixth Amendment constitutional right to counsel in the grand jury room,[42][43] nor do they have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, individuals in grand jury proceedings can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury.[2] Media is not allowed.[44] Furthermore, all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[2]
In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States held in U.S. v. Calandra that "the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases does not apply to grand jury proceedings because the principal objective of the rule is ‘to deter future unlawful police conduct,’ [. . .] and ‘it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury proceedings would significantly further that goal.’" [45] Illegally obtained evidence, therefore, is admissible in grand jury proceedings, and the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply.
{snip}
Be very careful what you wish for - and what you champion and what you complain about.