It’s Incredibly Rare for a Grand Jury to Do What Ferguson’s Just Did
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-police-body-came...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-ca...
That makes me wonder if the prosecutors had concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, but didn't want to be the ones to deliver that message. Hence, they took the case to the Grand Jury to let them be the ones to do so.
Disclaimer: This case was handled according to Missouri state law, about which I know little.
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-con...
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-gr...