Whether anybody realizes it or not, the Scott shooting IS going before a grand jury.

[Are_grits_groceries]

Prosecutors in South Carolina plan to go to a local grand jury with the case of the former North Charleston police officer who shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop.

The soonest the case could be presented to a grand jury is May 4, according to the prosecutor’s office. The former officer, Michael T. Slager, is being held on a charge of murder in connection with the shooting death of Walter L. Scott on Saturday.

“My role is to hold accountable those who harm others unlawfully, regardless of profession,” prosecutor Scarlett Wilson said in a prepared statement. “This office does not dictate nor comment upon police policy, training and procedure. I am, however, deeply concerned when those who are sworn to serve and protect violate the public's trust.”
<snip>
More: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-south-carolina-shooting-20150410-story.html

In Ferguson, McCullough made a mockery of the use of a grand jury. The way the prosecutor handles this case will tell a lot.

[joshcryer]

1. There are two witnesses to the crime.

A person and a camera.

What the Ferguson guy did was purposefully take all the shitty witnesses and lump them in with the better ones, threw out all attempts at forensic analysis, and did not make a remote effort to counter what Wilson said.

Video really changes everything.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. There are at least 3 witnesses.

Somebody was in Scott's car. The only info I have seen is that whoever it is has retained an attorney. There may be others who weren't obvious. The guy who took the video certainly wasn't.

The defense is going to concentrate on the small amount of time there was no video. The attorney will most likely claim that was when Scott did/said something that made Slager lose it. That's where the witnesses will be crucial. This would be in a trial phase. I'm not saying it will work.

The witnesses will also be crucial in the grand jury phase.

[joshcryer]

3. I don't think that person saw it.

They ran behind a building as far as I understand. They probably didn't even get out of the car.

Witnesses can sink or swim a case, but because it's just one witness and a video, you can't use the witnesses to place doubt in the minds of the grand jury.

Now that I think about it there was another person who said she saw a "tussle."

I think the video is what will make the case and it'll come down to whether it was manslughter, second degree murder, or first degree.

[jberryhill]

4. Both of you might look closely at the dashcam video

Aside from the guy with the camera and the passenger, there was a green car in which the occupants saw part of the chase. It rolls by just after Scott and Slager took off. Also, you'll notice two people across Craig street who head over to see what's going on after the green car passes by.

[CincyDem]

5. Why the grand jury vs. direct to trial ?

Seriously, help me out.

Seems like the only time I hear "grand jury" is when a white cop kills some black guy. Most shootings appear to go straight to trial. Is there some legal reason related to being an "office involved shooting" or is it judicial CYA on the local prosecutor's part ?