Ferguson, MO is a warzone.

[protege]

Apparently, "Witness 40" wasn't the only questionable one. Seems that Witness 41 has some questionable details as well. It's all second-hand news, and there's very little to back it up.

[Greenday]

With all these unreliable witnesses, it's pretty obvious why it doing go to a jury trial. There was zero chance of a conviction with such ridiculous testimony. On the one side, there's a bunch of people who keep changing their stories and there's no forensic evidence to back them up. On the other side, there's a cop who doesn't want to be convicted of any criminal offenses and will probably say anything to get away with it.

It sucks someone not being charged anything because we just don't know what happened instead of knowing one way or the other.

[Andara Bledin]

On the other side, there's a cop who doesn't want to be convicted of any criminal offenses and will probably say anything to get away with it.

Well, there might have been an issue with a trial (we'll never know because the DA threw the indictment), but he could certainly be written up for a huge laundry list of policy violations that would likely be enough to kick him off the force on their merits alone.

[Tama]

This is probably why he is quitting. Before they boot him.

[Greenday]

This is probably why he is quitting. Before they boot him.

It saves him time and effort, it saves his department time, effort, and further embarrassment, and it saves the union a lot of time, effort, and further embarrassment.

[EricKei]

The DA has admitted that he knew that some of the witnesses were full of it, but let them testify anyway. Not entirely surprising, but still...

[Gravekeeper]

The DA has admitted that he knew that some of the witnesses were full of it, but let them testify anyway. Not entirely surprising, but still...

Oh for fuck sakes. He's so proud of himself for this that he can't help but keep talking about.

[Anthony K. S.]

McCulloch: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury.

... Why?

When you're a district attorney in a grand jury hearing, you are only supposed to present evidence of the defendant's guilt.

The grand jury doesn't need to hear or evaluate the evidence that exonerates the defendant. That's not their job.

Their function is to evaluate the prosecution's case and decide whether it is strong enough to proceed to trial.

And you sure as hell don't present witnesses who you know are lying. That's in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it's potentially grounds for disbarment.

...

So, just out of curiosity ... If presenting a grand jury with a witness who's lying is grounds for disbarment, then what is presenting a grand jury with a witness who's lying in favor of the defendant grounds for?

A psychiatric evaluation?

[Greenday]

He let people who testified Wilson executed Brown go in front of the jury. It wasn't his job to decide who was telling the truth, it was the grand jury's.

[Andara Bledin]

He let people who testified Wilson executed Brown go in front of the jury. It wasn't his job to decide who was telling the truth, it was the grand jury's.

I'm pretty sure presenting the best case for the prosecution actually is his job.

Allowing people that he later admitted to knowing were committing perjury take the stand should be punishable to even a greater degree than actually committing perjury is to begin with.

Then again, since the guy isn't even going to levy any charges against any of the people who decided to lie under oath, it doesn't really make any difference. It just makes a mockery of the entire justice system.

[Lindsay B.]

This could be a little career lesson for prosecutors :

presenting a grand jury with a witness who's lying

Don't do that! It's illegal!

presenting a grand jury with a witness who's lying in favor of the defendant

Don't do that, either! It's stupid!

A psychiatric evaluation?

Possibly, that might come of the fact that he not only allowed witnesses to commit perjury in favor of the defense, but that he's openly telling the media that he did.

I can easily imagine somebody hauling this man to a mental health professional and saying, "Check this guy out. We think he's a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

It wasn't his job to decide who was telling the truth

Um, yes it is.

That's called "evaluating the credibility of the witness." It's a standard part of any lawyer's job when they're building a case.

If you call a witness to testify, and then the opposing counsel exposes the witness as a liar, it could very well destroy your case. At the very least, it will make you look like an idiot in the eyes of the jury, and that's a hard blow to recover from.

Granted, there's no opposing counsel in a grand jury hearing, but again, if the grand jury decides that you just presented them with a witness who was full of B.S., it will hurt your credibility.

No lawyer with any sense is going to present a witness without first making sure that the witness's testimony is at least strong enough to hold up in the eyes of the jury. Never mind the consequences if it turns out the witness isn't even telling the truth.

Or the consequences of allowing a witness to testify when you actually know that they're lying.

it was the grand jury's

The grand jury's job is to decide whether the prosecution has enough evidence to meet the "probable cause" standard required to go to trial.

They don't need to hear defense testimony to do that. If they did, we wouldn't be prohibiting defense lawyers from presenting evidence to the grand jury.

Hearing all of the evidence from both sides and evaluating the credibility of all of the witnesses to decide guilt or innocence is the trial jury's job, not the grand jury's.

And for that matter, evaluating evidence and witnesses to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not is VERY MUCH the district attorney's job. That's part of what we pay the police and the D.A.'s office to do - investigate and figure out who is guilty of what.

I'm pretty sure presenting the best case for the prosecution actually is his job.

Correct.

When the district attorney goes before a grand jury, his job is to convince them to indict. When the district attorney goes before a trial jury, his job is to convince them to convict.

In both places, he's supposed to get his case in order beforehand, not blindly hand everything to the jury and say, "You figure it out."

And if he doesn't have the evidence to make the case, he shouldn't be going before either jury at all.

One thing's for sure : We don't pay taxes so that prosecutors can waste time and resources by deliberately sabotaging their own cases.