SF Public Defender’s Statement on Grand Jury Decision

SF Public Defender’s Statement on Grand Jury Decision

As San Francisco Public Defender, I am deeply disappointed with the grand jury’s failure to indict Darren Wilson for the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. A series of questionable, and in my opinion, biased legal and ethical decisions in the investigation and prosecution of the case presented to the grand jury led to this unjust result, most notably allowing a local prosecutor with strong family connections to police supervise the investigation and presentation of the evidence. This ethical failure resulted in the exceedingly rare step of the prosecuting attorney refusing to recommend an indictment against the police officer he was prosecuting. The police investigation and inquiry itself were rife with problems:

So Wilson was never cross examined..that in itself is such BS.

They took his word as fact and it was never questioned...BIAS. It's over now but I hope the parents sue the pants of that department for wrongful death.

This is very true.
It appears here that the DA CAME TO HIS OWN CONCLUSION that Wilson was justified and then to circumvent the criticism he would have gotten for NOT indicting Wilson he created this sham of a Grand Jury “ investigation” appearing as an objective adjudicator of the evidence

This is a contradiction of his own presentation since he was obviously an advocate for Wilson not an objective presenter of the facts.

In literally thousands of Grand Juries only 11 have gone against a prosecuter!

Wilson may have been very justified in doing this unfortunate killing but we’ll never know because his evidence, as the OP indicates, was never challenged.

This prosecutor should have recused himself and allowed for a special prosecutor

He could be right.

Maybe everything is fixed.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Don't believe anyone is ever cross examined during a grand jury. The prosecution presents evidence and usually very little as the bar is lower for an indictment than for a conviction by a jury. From what we have been told, every piece of evidence was presented to the Grand Jury for them to make a decision.

For every expert who has criticized the process there is another who has said they went out of the way to make it fair. I wasn't there and there fore have no comment on the right and wrong of the decision of the jury. There is no doubt we have a problem in our system of justice today, too many lawyers if you ask me but it is a better system than most.

It would appear that Federal charges or at least a Federal Grand Jury will be looking into the case. Will that be enough ? I doubt it...people are upset and even if clear evidence showed guilt on either side, and we do not have that here, then no one will be happy, only that someone goes to jail.

a reply to: Onslaught2996


Not taking sides here but do you have any idea how hard it would be in this case to prove bias and then prove it had something to do with anything? In a factual evidentiary satisfying sort of way? It would be easier to prove Brown had a bias in operation that contributed to his actions.