To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

So apparently Misouri law makes it extremely easy to claim self-defense. It's a lot easier than what I would've thought. I had heard that self-defense is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant when it's used. This made me think that the case of Darren Wilson should go to trial. It'd be much easier to prosecute if it becomes "guilty until proven innocent" the moment Darren Wilson claims self-defense.

It doesn't actually work like that in Misouri. I'm not sure how many places actually function that way nowadays.

Here's an article explaining why it's so hard to prosecute Darren Wilson: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible

All Darren Wilson has to do is testify that it was self-defense. That's enough evidence to protect him as long as the prosecution can't contradict it. He says he's innocent and that makes him innocent just because he says so.

Not just his word, rather, evidence showing that it was self-defense. You know, forensics.

The burden of proof it on people to prove that he wasn't justified to use lethal force. It's the same everywhere (English speaking countries).

As of now, no jury in the world could prove that it wasn't justified with all the evidence. There needs to be something quite spectacular, such as video of the entire thing, to change that (which would be odd based on the physical evidence anyway, unless Wilson manipulated it all, like kicking around shell casings, shooting the inside of his car, pouring Brown's blood on the ground in specific locations, and other movie-tier shenanigans).

I just find the bolded part interesting because I was taught in high-school law that it's the opposite. The burden of proof is on the defense when self-defense is claimed. I'm not claiming to know anything just because of a high-school course it's just that the contradiction draws my attention.

This Wikipedia article also suggests that the burden of proof would be on the defendant if self defense is claimed: Affirmative defense

I've also heard the same thing on numerous other occasions.

It's not like a Wikipedia article, a high school course, and hearsay, are credible sources (even when they're combined together) but I've heard it so many times that it is a surprise to learn that the burden of proof would be on the prosecution.

It would really depend on the state. In some states, a claim of self defense doesn't need all that much proof to claim. For example, instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", it may only be "by a preponderance of the evidence".

When it goes to criminal court, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution and needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. Prior to that, whether it goes to criminal court is defined by if there's evidence showing that any wrongdoing was done (it's not determining guilt).

Which is why an indictment would be entirely unwarranted in this case going by the evidence, and would probably be breaking some law itself, but I don't know which one.

(I did Criminal Justice, taught by police officers. Self-defense was my favorite part to learn.)

What's the point of having a jury do the indictment, then, if they're essentially deciding whether or not he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Why not just indict and have a trial jury...?

I'm really not understanding the US legal system... it seems that you're put on trial twice, with both juries deciding about exactly the same matter?

It's deciding if there's a possibility that wrongdoing was done. If they can't find that, why send it to criminal court and waste money and detain an innocent man?

We don't have it here, but I'm a fan of it (well, we do, but it's not determined by common citizens).

It's another checks and balances so people can't just send anyone to criminal court with little evidence, or that a single government official can do the same (say, a president).

Pardon me, I'm still not 100% on this whole indictment process. I thought the point was to examine whether the prosecution had a case, not to examine the balance of evidence? Evidence that supports the defence doesn't need to be presented at all at this stage.

I understand the arguments about cost, but for me and probably most other people, justice is more important than financial concerns.

Right. The state has to prove a crime occurred.

At least four people in the grand jury determined that there was insufficient evidence that a crime happened.

That sounds like something that should happen at a trial. Surely pre-trial things like this just need to determine if there is a prima facie case?

I'm sure you and everyone would love it if you're indicted, arrested, charged, and locked up for a crime that you didn't actually commit (due to no evidence pointing to you committing it).

It'd be little consolation that a jury found you not guilty in a criminal court after all of that.

Yeah, and there's no case here. Hence, why it didn't go further.

There always needs to be evidence that you committed a crime for it to go to criminal court. Killing someone in a clear case of self-defense isn't a crime.

I feel grand jury literally had the eyes of the whole world upon them; they even had the AG of the US visit/investigate the situation. I also feel that Brown's friends should be charged with perjury and inciting a riot with their false accusations. We had a saying growing up that fits Ferguson; "Don't confuse me with the truth".

There is evidence, there are multiple witness accounts that contradict Wilson, even if you discount the obviously biased one.

Occasionally people are found not guilty after a trial. Obviously ideally everyone charged with a crime would actually be guilty. A functioning justice system requires that sometimes people who only might be guilty will be charged. If we only charged people who were already looking like dead certs before cross examination then there would be far more people walking around having got away with murder. I do of course believe that people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and I think it is worth letting some murderers walk free to prevent accidentally convicting anyone, but a mere trial is something else altogether.

In a case like this one, Wilson would probably be bailed.


Again, this isn't a clear case of self defence. Most of the witnesses offer cases that contradict Wilson's. It might well have been self defence.

I really think you should take a look at the evidence because right now you're just making yourself look silly. I know you have quite strong right-wing opinions and everyone hates challenging their pre-conceived notions, but you are on the same intellectual level as the people talking about the harmless, unarmed college student.

This is what one attorney had to say about the issue:

Do you really believe that the prosecutor should charge people with a crime and take them to trial merely because there there is some possibility that the jury might find them guilty even though he does not believe them to be guilty?

Here's a rather trivial example. Suppose you are given a counterfeit $10 bill in change and don't realize it is counterfeit and then later take it to the bank and attempt to deposit it in your account. When the bank determines that it is counterfeit, confiscates the money, and turns it over to the US Secret Service (as they will), should the federal prosecutor file charges against you for attempting to pass counterfeit money merely because a jury might find you guilty even if he himself is quite sure that it was an innocent error on your part?

For that matter, how about those involved in the protests in Ferguson since the shooting. Should the police just arrest everyone involved on the chance that they might have looted a store or burned it to the ground and let the jury decide who was innocent?

Prosecutors have discretion for a reason. If a prosecutor were to file charges against anyone for an appearance that something might be wrong, the justice system would really bog down and most of the larger and larger numbers of defendants would have to spend their life savings and then go into debt to defend themselves from bogus charges that the prosecutor and police knew to be wrong.

I can guarantee you that if we took away that discretion from the prosecutor, the levels of injustice in this country would skyrocket far beyond anything we can even imagine.

Pot smoker, no. Shoplifter, yes -- he would not have come to the attention of the police if he had not robbed that store.

If the citizens of Ferguson want Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Fife to maintain the peace, then they had better start acting like the citizens of Mayberry.

But if instead they continue to act like punks, thugs, thieves, and all-around troublemakers, they will continue to have a police force that is on edge and ready to use deadly force whenever possible.

Ferguson has the police force it deserves.