The fact is that the D.A. manipulated the grand jury process in an effort to not go to trial. If he wanted to take this to trial he could have gotten the grand jury to indict.
First, consider what Justince Antonin Scalia has said regarding the purpose of a grand jury:
Now combine this with how rare it is for a grand jury not to return an indictment. The following numbers are for federal cases; however, I think it a reasonable illustration of indictment rates:
The fact that Michael Brown was 150' away when gunned down merits a trial in my opinion. People that support the grand jury decision seem to not have a problem with this fact; which is a bit disturbing.
First, consider what Justince Antonin Scalia has said regarding the purpose of a grand jury:
Quote:It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11...rand-jury/
Now combine this with how rare it is for a grand jury not to return an indictment. The following numbers are for federal cases; however, I think it a reasonable illustration of indictment rates:
Quote:U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fergu...en-wilson/
The fact that Michael Brown was 150' away when gunned down merits a trial in my opinion. People that support the grand jury decision seem to not have a problem with this fact; which is a bit disturbing.
