3 ms·

I doubt the prosecutor had a choice. Grand juries are generally there as a constitutional check on the power of prosecutors, and so prosecutors are required to

I doubt the prosecutor had a choice. Grand juries are generally there as a constitutional check on the power of prosecutors, and so prosecutors are required to get an indictment for charges of a certain kind. Disclaimer: This case was handled according to Missouri state law, about which I know little.

cozzyd 12y ago
Apparently Missouri has a very broad self-defense law which would have made conviction extremely difficult. From [1]: "...as long as there is a modicum of evidence and reasonable plausibility in support of a self-defense claim, a court must accept the claim and acquit the accused. The prosecution must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but also disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense to the same high standard." Although, I feel like the law would not be applied symmetrically... (if Brown had shot Wilson several times and claimed it was because Wilson threatened him). [1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-con...
tzs 12y ago
I found more on this, in a story from St. Louis Public Radio [1]. In Missouri, the prosecutor has two paths available. • The prosecutor can decide that there is probable cause and charge the defendant, and the defendant then gets a preliminary hearing before a judge in open court. The judge decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial. • The prosecutor can present the case to a grand jury, and the grand jury decides whether or not there is probable cause. [1] http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-grand-jury-process-darren-wilson-case http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-gr...

3 ms·

I doubt the prosecutor had a choice. Grand juries are generally there as a constitutional check on the power of prosecutors, and so prosecutors are required to

by ggchappell 12y ago

cozzyd 12y ago
Apparently Missouri has a very broad self-defense law which would have made conviction extremely difficult. From [1]: "...as long as there is a modicum of evidence and reasonable plausibility in support of a self-defense claim, a court must accept the claim and acquit the accused. The prosecution must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but also disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense to the same high standard." Although, I feel like the law would not be applied symmetrically... (if Brown had shot Wilson several times and claimed it was because Wilson threatened him). [1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-con...
tzs 12y ago
I found more on this, in a story from St. Louis Public Radio [1]. In Missouri, the prosecutor has two paths available. • The prosecutor can decide that there is probable cause and charge the defendant, and the defendant then gets a preliminary hearing before a judge in open court. The judge decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial. • The prosecutor can present the case to a grand jury, and the grand jury decides whether or not there is probable cause. [1] http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-grand-jury-process-darren-wilson-case http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-gr...