I heard the news today, oh boy...

[bktheirregular]

I woke up, read the headlines from the newspapers, and wanted to go hide under my bed, even though I'm 8 time zones away from Ferguson, Missouri.

At this point, I'm looking for silver linings in the dark cloud, because it's that or punch something, and anything I break, I've got to fix, and what I'd probably break would be my hand.

Okay, silver lining one: we live in an age where obscenities such as the grand jury proceeding can't be swept under the rug any more. There are scribes everywhere, and they can talk to people everywhere. It can't be ignored. It's got to be dealt with.

Silver lining two, which is probably cold comfort at this point in time: there's a significant difference between a trial jury - a "petit jury" - delivering a verdict of "not guilty" and a grand jury returning "no bill" on an indictment. The latter isn't covered by double jeopardy under US law. It's entirely possible - however unlikely - that at some point in the future, a prosecutor (perhaps a special prosecutor) could present an indictment before another grand jury, which could return a true bill of indictment, and the accused would face a petit jury which would decide his guilt or innocence.

Like I said, cold comfort. Nothing can bring back the dead.

Comments

[twistedchick]

It is also possible -- and I sincerely hope the family will do this -- to bring a civil suit for damages against Wilson and the police department as a whole. IIRC this was done against OJ Simpson by the families of the people who were killed, and he ended up paying bigtime.

[bktheirregular]

Yeah, a wrongful-death suit. Wilson could certainly be found liable to Brown's family for wrongful death ... although...

(I've got to put on my legal-theorist hat here and look at it abstractly to keep my blood pressure from spiking.)

Simpson had to testify, and the prior acquittal meant he no longer had Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. Wilson still has the Fifth protecting him in that regard. And would evidence brought out in a civil trial be usable in a subsequent criminal trial?

I can see law-school professors stumping students with this mess for years to come.

[twistedchick]

Would there be a criminal trial, after a civil case, if the grand jury failed to indict?

[bktheirregular]

I've been reading up on it, and from what I've dug up, a grand jury delivering "no bill" on an indictment isn't the same as a trial jury rendering a "not guilty" verdict. It's more like a dismissal without prejudice; I'm fairly certain that a prosecutor would have the option of re-submitting an indictment.

It's just rare for a prosecutor to deliver an indictment before a grand jury and not present sufficient evidence to get the grand jury to return a "true bill". In a high-profile case, I'd guess that the most likely causes of such an outcome would be either gross incompetence on the part of the prosecutor presenting the case, or the prosecutor actively trying to get the grand jury to deliver a "no bill".

A grand jury's significantly different from a trial jury in a lot of ways. It's not generally convened for a single case, but hears a string of different cases. Plus which, the proceedings of grand juries are supposed to be kept secret; there's a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that's pretty straight-forward and strict on that point.

[twistedchick]

At times like this, I wish we had the Scottish system of justice: guilty, not guilty and *not proven*, which implies "don't do anything like that again, ever, or we'll come down on you like an avalanche."

[bktheirregular]

Yeah, I can understand. But Wilson's case didn't even reach the point where there was *any* verdict. "No bill" basically means that the prosecutor failed to make a case to the grand jury that there should even *be* a trial. Wilson's case hasn't even been disposed of at the state level at this point; a special prosecutor can still come in and present a case for murder or manslaughter to a different grand jury and bring the case to trial.

[twistedchick]

That's good to know.

Meanwhile, one of my cousins has a NYC detective for a son, and she was all over Facebook about "Defend Wilson, unjustly accused". I have a hard time not reaching through time and space and throwing things at her. I think I'll be choosy about whether to read her at all this week.

[bktheirregular]

Then there's the idiot who suggested that President Obama should invite Wilson to the White House and apologize to him for the injustice done to him and thank him for his service.

Which wouldn't be worth mentioning except that this particular waste of amino acids happens to be a United States Congressperson from the State of New York. (Thankfully not the Congressperson in the district where my vote is tabulated, or I'd be researching ways to send a Howler-style message to his office in Washington...)

[twistedchick]

The full range of intelligence, compassion and savvy -- and the complete lack of it -- can be found among the US Congressional reps from New York state. Times have not changed in that regard.