Written by Benjamin Heacox
It’s interesting how the prosecutor went about trying to indict Darren Wilson. First off, a grand jury for indictment only hears the prosecutor’s case to decide if their case makes sense. If it does, then we have a trial where the defendant gets to defend himself. Also, a grand jury can ask for any evidence they want in their deliberation.
What’s odd to me is that the prosecutor presented some conflicting evidence in his case that worked in the defense of the officer. The evidence that defends the officer is important, don’t get me wrong, but unless the grand jury asks for it specifically, why would someone whose job it is to get an indictment present evidence that works against his case?
Also, it’s odd that the defendant, Darren Wilson, would testify so extensively to a grand jury. It’s not because he shouldn’t testify, but it’s because the prosecutor would usually tear his story apart to make the case. The defendant has no lawyer if he decides to testify before the grand jury, so he greatly risks incriminating himself because the only lawyer present is supposed to be on the opposing side.
So, why blame the jury if you don’t agree with the ruling? Chief Judge Sol Wachtler of New York State once said “a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ if that’s what you wanted,” (speaking to prosecutors). Basically, if a grand jury decides not to indict someone, either your case is shit by nature or you made it into shit yourself. We all know there was definitely a case to be made against the officer, so the stink must be the prosecutor. Even if you believe that Darren Wilson was innocent, he needed to go to court to prove it. Why didn’t he go to court? Well, ask the prosecutor, because the jury was his to lose.
Jan. 7, 2015 | Archived