Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting

[branford]

26. For a state prosecution, the focus is probably on the forensic evidence.

Witness testimony, regardless of whether it is for the prosecution or defense, tends to be very unreliable. If the witnesses against Wilson are not consistent with the forensics, and more importantly, the testimony of witnesses for Wilson is supported by the forensics, it might actually be bad faith on the part of the prosecutor to even go to trial. The state's burdens and responsibility go far beyond prevailing against the defendant, while defense counsel's only obligation is to his or her client.

A civil rights prosecution requires that the government not only essentially prove the underlying crime, but that it was done in willfully to deprive Brown of his civil rights. This is a MUCH higher standard. Even if Wilson unreasonably believed he was defending himself, it would not meet the "willful" requirement. The prosecution witnesses would need to be able to testify not only about the shooting, but about the ancillary interactions between Brown and Wilson, such as racial remarks and similar activity. Since many of the apparently strongest and best witnesses have spoken to the press, and none have indicated such knowledge, it's possible no such witnesses even exist.

As I mentioned, there's likely a great deal of witnesses testimony and other evidence that we know absolutely nothing about. I understand and share the anger and disappointment of those who fight against racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but any prosecution of Wilson still requires a great deal of admissible evidence to justify a trial and support a conviction.