The Ferguson Prosecutor, McCullough, 'Failed' to get a GJ Indictment. How rare is this?

[badtoworse]

21. I think you misinterpreted what I said

IMO, there are two key points in all this. The first one is the question of whether Wilson had probable cause to confront Brown. If he did not, then the issues you raised (Wilson's past) have relevance, but most likely not to the case the grand jury was hearing. If Wilson had no probable cause then he could potentially be charged with federal civil rights crimes and his state of mind and past issues with Black people become central to a federal case. If he did have probable cause, then Wilson's past is irrelevant as to whether he had reason to confront Brown - in that case, Wilson had a duty to stop Brown, his past notwithstanding.

Another consideration in not bringing up Wilson's past is the involvement of the feds. McCulloch was well aware that the feds were on the case and would be looking at the civil rights aspects. Given that, why would McCulloch present evidence relevant to a federal case to a grand jury investigating state charges? He had no reason or need to.

McCulloch stated that Wilson was aware that a robbery had taken place, had a description of the suspect and recognized Brown as the likely suspect. IMO, that is certainly probable cause and Wilson had an obligation to confront Brown. Given how important this point is to a federal case, I am sure that federal agents looked at it very closely.

The other point is what actually took place after the confrontation was initiated. McCulloch stated that ALL of the testimony and evidence was given to the grand jury. If that is true, then the grand jurors were in a position to decide for themselves which witnesses were credible and which were not. McCulloch's opinion about that would be irrelevant, as would the fact that he detailed why certain witnesses were deemed not credible in his press conference. Unless McCulloch withheld evidence damaging to Wilson that a different prosecutor might have presented, then I don't see how a different prosecutor would have gotten an indictment.

As far as the embarrassment goes, it relates to McCulloch's statement that the grand jury had gotten everything and that they were sharing everything with the feds. If the feds, knew that to be false or if they later discovered that Wilson had been withholding evidence, it would have become public. At best, McCulloch would have been disgraced and potentially would have been open to prosecutorial misconduct or even obstruction of justice charges. McCulloch would have been taking a huge risk if he did not present all the facts.

You pointed out that a return of no true bill is rare. Prosecutors don't waste time with cases they do not believe they can win, so that means that, before he goes to the grand jury, the prosecutor is confident he can convince twelve out of twelve jurors to convict in a criminal trial. Given that, convincing nine out of twelve on a grand jury should be easy, hence the low number of "no true bill" results. In my opinion, McCulloch did not believe that Wilson could be convicted in a criminal trial, and under "normal" circumstances, he would not have presented to the grand jury. Had he done that, the outrage would likely have been even worse than what we are seeing now. McCulloch had no choice but to take the case to the grand jury and the best he could do was present all of the facts and let the grand jury decide. I believe he did that.

Lastly, I don't believe it would have been proper for McCulloch to recuse himself. To have done so would been a statement that he did not believe he could be fair in a trial involving a confrontation between an LEO and a Black person. If that's true, then he has no business being a prosecuting attorney. If a special prosecutor was needed, I believe the governor should have been the one to make the appointment.