![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The grand jury system is broken. At least when it comes to indicting police officers.
“A competent District Attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” I’ve heard variations on that statement over and over, both on the news programs and from attorneys I know. A grand jury’s task is not to decide guilt or innocence; its task is to decide whether there’s enough evidence to warrant an indictment and trial. Various states have differing laws, but in a grand jury, there’s no defense lawyer pleading the defendant’s case, only the prosecutor who presumably wants the grand jury to indict. The DA doesn’t even need a unanimous decision from the 16 to 23 people who make up a grand jury to indict someone, only a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (depending on the jurisdiction).
Grand juries rarely fail to return indictments when convened. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/24/the-rarity-of-a-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/), there were 162,000 federal grand jury cases in 2010 (which is the latest year for which there are statistics. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 of them, a vanishingly small percentage.
Yet in two enormously prominent cases in the last few weeks—the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson and the chokehold death of Eric Garner on Staten Island—grand juries failed to return an indictment. The problem is that District Attorneys, responsible for convincing the grand jury to return an indictment, also work closely with the police, are dependent on the police to provide the evidence to convict those they prosecute, and are all too often on friendly terms with the police officers. That’s understandable. It also means that their incentive to indict those same officers is low, as they will continue to be interacting with the police on a daily basis in the course of their job.
In Ferguson, from the transcripts I’ve read myself, the DA acted more as a defense attorney for Officer Wilson. His questioning of Wilson consisted of softball queries and no hard follow-up at all regarding some odd statements on Wilson’s part. He reserved skepticism for evidence that indicated that the shooting of Michael Brown might have been unjustified. To me—admittedly an outsider, and not a lawyer—the DA didn’t do his job here at all
Most people have likely seen the video of Eric Garner’s death, ruled by the coroner a homicide. We can watch the entire incident, as recorded by a bystander. Again, to me, there appears to be no reason for the aggressive actions of the police. Garner is upset, yes -- but I’d be upset myself at being threatened with arrest for something as puny as selling loose cigarettes. I don’t know Staten Island law (and someone jump in if you have a solid answer) but selling loose cigarettes hardly seems to be an arrestable offense; couldn’t the officer have simply written out a ticket? Garner doesn’t particularly seem to strenuously resist arrest, either. He’s surrounded by several cops; when he pulls his hand away, one of them jumps on him from behind, arm around his throat, and takes him down. You hear Garner protesting that he can’t breathe, but four officers swarm him, pushing his head down, while one is on top of the man.
I doubt that Officer Pantaleo had any intention of killing Garner. I believe his statement that he regrets the death. But I don’t see how a grand jury, given the video evidence and the coroner’s ruling of homicide, could fail to indict Pantaleo in order to decide in court his guilt or innocence... unless the DA entirely failed in his job to bring the indictment. I find it hard to believe that the DA wanted an indictment.
And that’s the problem. DAs shouldn’t be handling cases where they have a working relationship with the defendant. They should be required to recuse themselves, and the case either transferred out of the district or an outside prosecutor brought in, one who has no connection with the police whatsoever.
The perception here, regardless of the possible guilt or innocence of the officers involved in the deaths, is that the justice system is rigged and unfair when it comes to the police being charged. We can’t have that.
“A competent District Attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” I’ve heard variations on that statement over and over, both on the news programs and from attorneys I know. A grand jury’s task is not to decide guilt or innocence; its task is to decide whether there’s enough evidence to warrant an indictment and trial. Various states have differing laws, but in a grand jury, there’s no defense lawyer pleading the defendant’s case, only the prosecutor who presumably wants the grand jury to indict. The DA doesn’t even need a unanimous decision from the 16 to 23 people who make up a grand jury to indict someone, only a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (depending on the jurisdiction).
Grand juries rarely fail to return indictments when convened. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/24/the-rarity-of-a-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/), there were 162,000 federal grand jury cases in 2010 (which is the latest year for which there are statistics. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 of them, a vanishingly small percentage.
Yet in two enormously prominent cases in the last few weeks—the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson and the chokehold death of Eric Garner on Staten Island—grand juries failed to return an indictment. The problem is that District Attorneys, responsible for convincing the grand jury to return an indictment, also work closely with the police, are dependent on the police to provide the evidence to convict those they prosecute, and are all too often on friendly terms with the police officers. That’s understandable. It also means that their incentive to indict those same officers is low, as they will continue to be interacting with the police on a daily basis in the course of their job.
In Ferguson, from the transcripts I’ve read myself, the DA acted more as a defense attorney for Officer Wilson. His questioning of Wilson consisted of softball queries and no hard follow-up at all regarding some odd statements on Wilson’s part. He reserved skepticism for evidence that indicated that the shooting of Michael Brown might have been unjustified. To me—admittedly an outsider, and not a lawyer—the DA didn’t do his job here at all
Most people have likely seen the video of Eric Garner’s death, ruled by the coroner a homicide. We can watch the entire incident, as recorded by a bystander. Again, to me, there appears to be no reason for the aggressive actions of the police. Garner is upset, yes -- but I’d be upset myself at being threatened with arrest for something as puny as selling loose cigarettes. I don’t know Staten Island law (and someone jump in if you have a solid answer) but selling loose cigarettes hardly seems to be an arrestable offense; couldn’t the officer have simply written out a ticket? Garner doesn’t particularly seem to strenuously resist arrest, either. He’s surrounded by several cops; when he pulls his hand away, one of them jumps on him from behind, arm around his throat, and takes him down. You hear Garner protesting that he can’t breathe, but four officers swarm him, pushing his head down, while one is on top of the man.
I doubt that Officer Pantaleo had any intention of killing Garner. I believe his statement that he regrets the death. But I don’t see how a grand jury, given the video evidence and the coroner’s ruling of homicide, could fail to indict Pantaleo in order to decide in court his guilt or innocence... unless the DA entirely failed in his job to bring the indictment. I find it hard to believe that the DA wanted an indictment.
And that’s the problem. DAs shouldn’t be handling cases where they have a working relationship with the defendant. They should be required to recuse themselves, and the case either transferred out of the district or an outside prosecutor brought in, one who has no connection with the police whatsoever.
The perception here, regardless of the possible guilt or innocence of the officers involved in the deaths, is that the justice system is rigged and unfair when it comes to the police being charged. We can’t have that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject