Legal Experts Explain Why The Ferguson Grand Jury Was Set Up For Failure

[JDPriestly]

36. I did not meant to suggest that there should be a presumption of innocence at the grand jury

hearing. That would be impossible because the purpose of the hearing is to determine, as you point out, whether there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial. Sorry that my statement was confusing.

I was speaking to DUers. To get a fair jury trial, it is important that the public presume innocence or at least try to.

It's very difficult, but we should give every defendant a fair hearing. That fair hearing is denied all too often.

I'm not saying Wilson is innocent. I'm just saying that it takes a trial to determine whether he has been found guilty or not.

I hope you understand what I am saying. I am not taking Wilson's side. I am just reminding people that guilt or innocence is determined at a trial.

I do not think that prosecutors who work so closely with police officers and rely on the police officer's testimony in most cases -- who are colleagues of the police officers in a sense -- should bring cases regarding the indictment of a police officer to a grand jury. There should be a special panel of lawyers from which someone is picked to present the evidence to the grand jury in a case concerning a police officer.

This grand jury hearing was a travesty. It is possible that the prosecutor presumed not the guilt but the innocence of the accused, Wilson.