A law professor explains the Darren Wilson grand jury

[LuckyTheDog]

Edited to add emphasis (which is not in the original):

In this case, the prosecutor did not bring charges against Darren Wilson. Instead, the prosecutor used the grand jury in an investigative role to determine whether to indict Darren Wilson. Under existing law, the prosecutor has discretion to proceed in this way. Unlike a regular grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents just enough evidence to support probable cause, the grand jury heard all of the evidence that the prosecutor had on the case as it considered.

Using a grand jury in this way is unusual. Prosecutors go this route in cases involving possible excessive force by police or possible charges of corruption against elected officials. For example, a grand jury in New York City has been investigating the chokehold death of Eric Garner by a police officer since September. In August, a grand jury in Texas indicted Texas Governor Rick Perry on two felony counts for abusing his official power and coercing a public servant in an effort to force a district attorney to step down after she was arrested on drunk-driving charges.

In St Louis, Darren Wilson was permitted to testify, and he injected the defenses of a justified use of force and self-defense. The testimony by Darren Wilson is very unusual, because normally the suspect or, if charges have been filed, the accused, does not have an opportunity to testify before a grand jury. Indeed, in United States v. Williams (1992), the US Supreme Court observed that the accused neither has a right to testify nor to have the prosecution present exculpatory evidence (favorable to the defendant) to the grand jury.

Like any other witness testifying before a grand jury, Darren Wilson was not permitted to have an attorney present. The transcript of his testimony indicates that he was permitted to tell his version of what occurred. There were few hard questions put to him by either the prosecutors or any of the grand jurors.

MORE HERE: http://wonkynewsnerd.com/how-the-darren-wilson-grand-jury-operated/

[noiretextatique]

1. here's the most interesting part of the article.

Before the grand jury began their deliberations, the prosecutors instructed the grand jury that to return an indictment against Darren Wilson they had to find probable cause that he committed an offense. They were also told that to indict they would have to find no probable cause that either he acted in self-defense or that his use of force was justified under the law. These instructions likely led the grand jury, who heard conflicting testimony about what occurred, to decide not to indict Darren Wilson.

Did the prosecutor have to give those instructions?

[uponit7771]

2. The jury was told the wrong law in regards to firing on a fleeing person in the beginning of the

...trial

They did not question Wilson on that issue during the whole proceedings most likely based on information the PA gave them

[RobertEarl]

3. No Justice?

No Peace.

The prosecutor used the judicial system to further his own goals.

Justice was not blind in that jury. Rather it was forced to see the crime as one man - the prosecutor - wanted it to be seen. We can not allow this idea that Wilson should not have a fair trial to stand. There has been no justice yet in this case. No yet, but there will be.

[Gothmog]

4. The Grand Jury proceedings were rigged and flawed