.png)
 |
| Credit: Gene Demby / NPR |
I was the grand jury legal advisor for six months while a deputy district attorney. In California, the subject of a grand jury indictment hearing must be allowed to present exonerating evidence (evidence that might point toward innocence) if he or she wishes to do so, and the prosecutor is required to present exonerating evidence if he or she is aware of it. But it could be different in Missouri. So I will not offer any speculation upon what the Missouri grand jury might do in the Wilson/Brown case.
But I do want to say this. The new information that has come out about the injuries to officer Darren Wilson -- which include a broken eye socket -- only adds to a reasonable belief on his part that he had to shoot Michael Brown in self-defense. I also heard somewhere that Brown fell only a few feet from Wilson after being shot. This would corroborate Wilson's story that Brown was charging him. I'd like to know exactly how far Brown's body was from Wilson when Brown fell.
Also -- and this is just speculation -- I suspect that Wilson fired very rapidly as Brown was charging him. Six shots (or more -- we don't know yet) as fast as he could pull the trigger. I base this on the fact that all the shots were on the right side of Brown's body and in a rising pattern. This would be consistent with the gun barrel rising slightly on recoil as each shot was fired. This would also indicate that Wilson was firing quickly in self-defense.
Regarding the likelihood of Wilson being indicted: If he is indicted it will be a triumph of mob rule over the law. Just because a mob sees the case simply as a matter of a white cop shooting an unarmed black youth and ignores the obvious self-defense evidence is no reason for the grand jury to return an indictment. So unless some new evidence comes out to negate self-defense I will be greatly disappointed if the grand jury indicts him. But even if they do I believe a trial jury will acquit Wilson. Multiple investigations and multiple witness statements only make it easier to impeach the witness’s testimony at trial. Further, trial jury instructions state to the jurors that if there are two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- one indicating guilt and one indicating innocence -- the jury is required to return a not guilty verdict.
But it should not have to come to that. An indictment should not be returned. And if the mob wants to riot, that can be dealt with separately. We cannot allow the ravings of a mob and the threat of mob violence to subvert the rule of law.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
I agree completely, however, there was a MO State Senator basically advocating for even more violence if there is no indictment saying that this would look like a picnic if Wilson is not indicted. Very racist and irresponsible especially coming from a state Senator.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a registered voter and lived in Ferguson, MO, I'd move right now. The jury has no choice but to follow the evidence and if you happen to be on that jury and find the officer not guilty, they will release your name and a map to your house.
ReplyDeleteWith cases where the juror's could possibly be in danger, I think the court can opt to not release their names. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they ever released them from the Zimmerman case. I would certainly hope that they would do the same here if it comes to that. Hopefully not.
ReplyDelete