Quantcast
Connect with us

Explained: What a grand jury does, and why the Darren Wilson case was unusual

Published

on

Now that the grand jury has decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year old man, there remain many questions about this grand jury and generally about the use of grand juries in the United States.

The legal basis: federal and state

The fact that twelve randomly picked impartial citizens played such a key role in the matter is a unique feature of the criminal justice system in the US.

ADVERTISEMENT

The US Constitution and all state constitutions provide for grand juries. In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries consisting of sixteen to twenty-three members make all decisions to indict, and at least twelve grand jurors are necessary in an indictment, commonly called a “true bill.”

Provisions in state constitutions vary in terms of the size of grand juries. The Missouri Constitution calls for a twelve member grand jury, nine of which must concur in an indictment.

The make up of the Ferguson grand jury

Grand jurors in St Louis County are chosen from the same jury pool as trial jurors. A judge selects the grand jurors, and the judge tries to ensure that jurors are representative of the community.

The grand jurors who heard the case involving Michael Brown’s death were chosen in May, long before his death in August.

The judge chose nine white jurors and three African American jurors. Seven jurors were men and five jurors were women. They were from all parts of St Louis County, and the percentage of African Americans (25%) on the grand jury roughly equals the percentage of African Americans (24%) in St Louis County. The grand jury’s term was originally four months long – the normal term – but a judge extended the term in order for the grand jury to consider possible charges against Darren Wilson.

ADVERTISEMENT

The work of the grand jury

In all felony cases, there must be a “probable cause determination” that a crime has been committed. Probable cause means that there must be some evidence of each element of the offense. Most serious criminal cases usually begin with the prosecutor charging a person with one or more felonies. After the person is charged, the prosecutor has the option of bringing the case to the grand jury for the probable cause determination or to go before a judge for a probable cause determination through a preliminary hearing.

At a preliminary hearing, the accused is present along with his or her lawyer who can cross-examine witnesses. In the grand jury, however, only the prosecutor is present along with the grand jurors: both the prosecutor and the grand jurors can question each witness.

The grand jury process excludes the suspect and the defense attorney because it is not supposed to be a mini-trial but rather solely determine if there is some evidence to support felony charges. Like a preliminary hearing, it is a check on whether there is probable cause to support felony charges but is a secret proceeding that is usually much quicker than a preliminary hearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

In St Louis County, prosecutors usually bring serious felony cases or cases with numerous witnesses to the grand jury rather than a preliminary hearing because a police officer who has investigated a case can summarize his or her findings and witness statements to present the case more quickly than at a preliminary hearing where witnesses would be examined and cross-examined.

What happened in the Darren Wilson case

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 defendent) 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

The Conversation

By Peter A. Joy, Washington University in St Louis

Peter A. Joy does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump blasted by former White House ethics chief for attacking his own FBI director

Published

on

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump lashed out at FBI director Christopher Wray on Twitter for endorsing DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report debunking the Republican claim that the FBI "spied" on Trump's 2016 campaign. "The current director," tweeted Trump, will "never be able to fix" the "badly broken" FBI.

Trump's remark, and possible threat to Wray's job, drew outrage from former White House ethics official Walter Shaub:

The history books will note that he fired not only an FBI Director but also an Attorney General for allowing an investigation of his campaign. Now he's attacking another FBI Director for not being supporting of conspiracy theories about that investigation. https://t.co/6pqjShuP8k

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News hosts blasted for ‘cherry-picking’ IG report to spin it as a win for Trump: ‘They owe us an apology’

Published

on

On Tuesday morning, CNN host Alisyn Camerota dropped the hammer on Fox News for spinning the Justice Department inspector general report that absolved the department of any conspiracy against Donald Trump, instead saying that it was an indictment of the department.

Joined by CNN contributor, ex-Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and CNN host Brian Stelter, Camerota shared Fox clips from Monday night featuring hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and marveled at the obvious lies.

"Let's go back to reality-world instead of upside-down world right now," host Camerota smirked after rolling the clips, "which is what we just played a montage of. Charlie, when you hear, you know, the talking points from obviously the Trump cheerleaders as well as some of your former Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill, do they -- when Hannity says everything we've been reporting for years has been dead on accurate, we were right every step of the way, and the report completely negates that, do they believe that? Why are they saying that?"

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Did Trump just signal he may fire ‘current’ FBI director hours before meeting Russian foreign minister?

Published

on

President Donald Trump attacked his FBI director hours ahead of his White House meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, and other social media users noticed a big coincidence.

The president turned on Christopher Wray in an early morning Twitter rant after the FBI director broke with Attorney General William Barr and agreed the Justice Department's inspector general had found no evidence of wrongdoing at the start of the Russia probe.

Continue Reading