Whats up with grand juries being credulous towards unreliable witnesses?

[MRT144]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

Following the publication of this story, Sandra McElroy acknowledged to TSG that she is “Witness 40.” Voicing concerns for her minor children, McElroy said that she directed them to delete their Facebook accounts, adding that she has done the same. “After I speak with the prosecutor, attorney, and Police if they say its alright I will call you,” she said. McElroy subsequently asked to have an off-the-record conversation, a request to which a TSG reporter agreed.
DECEMBER 15--The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.

Not surprised.

[Berzerker]

after telling us Mike Brown didn't do anything wrong, his buddy Dorian Johnson said Mike didn't threaten the cop...much

[Boris Godunov]

Grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do, that's it. If the DA had wanted to charge Wilson, they would have. He didn't, so they didn't.

[Berzerker]

I'm getting the impression grand juries are a joke, either DAs can get a ham sandwich indicted or they're a loophole for the elite to escape trials

[regexcellent]

Grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do, that's it. If the DA had wanted to charge Wilson, they would have. He didn't, so they didn't.

Yes and no. The DA did what DAs are supposed to do, which is present both sides. He could have done what the usually do, which is run a hit piece on Wilson. The thing is, the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of Wilson; there was easily enough evidence at the grand jury hearing alone to introduce reasonable doubt and get him off on any charge you care to name. Not just testimony, but physical evidence, which not only confirmed Wilson's story but also discredited all of the witnesses against him.

Basically, Wilson is obviously innocent if you look at the evidence, the DA knew this, he presented all of the evidence he had, and the grand jury made the clear conclusion.

I'm getting the impression grand juries are a joke, either DAs can get a ham sandwich indicted or they're a loophole for the elite to escape trials

The first, but not the second. It's no more of a "loophole" than any other form of prosecutorial discretion.

[Hauldren Collider]

Grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do, that's it. If the DA had wanted to charge Wilson, they would have. He didn't, so they didn't.

Then can you explain the case in New York, where the prosecutor clearly did want them to prosecute?

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, it's not that grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do. They make decisions based on the information they are given. Sometimes prosecutors abuse this to get an indictment when they shouldn't, and only give the grand jury one side. Most of the time prosecutors don't try to indict anyone who isn't probably guilty, because they don't like wasting time. The two of these things combine to mean that grand juries almost always indict. That said, it's a bad system.

[Kidlicious]

So now you attack the witnesses who did nothing wrong? **** you *******.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes and no. The DA did what DAs are supposed to do, which is present both sides.

Who said that's what they're supposed to do? Consider that accused people have no right to testify before a grand jury. The purpose of a GJ is to return an indictment based on probable cause, not to convict. Nothing says the DA has to present anything except what he wants to present them, period.

[Hauldren Collider]

Nothing except rules of ethics...

[Boris Godunov]

Then can you explain the case in New York, where the prosecutor clearly did want them to prosecute?

Uh, except he didn't? The NY papers are all over how Donovan could have asked them to also consider a charge of reckless endangerment (which would allow for an indictment even if the cop did not intend to kill Garner), but for some inexplicable reason did not request that. Keep in mind that asking a jury to "consider a charge" is what DA's have to do when they are empaneled, regardless of what he intends to present them and how he presents it. So no, Donovan asking the GJ to consider manslaughter wasn't indicative of him wanting the cop actually prosecuted. It's well-known on Staten Island that Donovan is extremely reluctant to do anything against police officers.

[Boris Godunov]

Nothing except rules of ethics...

What rules of ethics? It's not a jury trial, it's a proceeding to obtain an indictment. Of course a DA would present what he chose in the manner he chose it. That's like saying DA's are "unethical" for arguing their view that a defendant committed murder but not advocating for the defense in a trial...

GJ's are archaic nonsense, anyway. Have a judge or panel of judges who actually understand the law decide on indictment, not a panel of rubes.

[Boris Godunov]

Berz alluded to the ham sandwich standard earlier, and that's entirely the case currently in this country:

Rubber stamp for the prosecution[edit]

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government.^[50] Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation.^[51] A chief judge of New York State’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”^[52] And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: “[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”^[53]

GJs do what prosecutor's tell them to do, simple as that. If a prosecutor doesn't make an effort to present a case in favor of an indictment, then he simply doesn't want them to indict. This is why the entire concept is fundamentally flawed.

[MRT144]

HC wants to live under this delusion that things are like 90% okay in this country in regards to everything. I honestly can't think of one thing he'd change from the status quo in the justice system.

[Kidlicious]

Grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do, that's it. If the DA had wanted to charge Wilson, they would have. He didn't, so they didn't.

Bull****. They didn't charge him because he's innocent. With a panel of judges, still innocent.