Again, no. It's certainly possible for them to play word jumble.
A grand jury investigation still wouldn't necessitate the presentation, pursuance or examination or exculpatory evidence.
Lemme put this plainly: The point of the Grand Jury, whether they be convened as a solely for indictment or as an investigative body, is to determine whether evidence exists TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT. The question of guilt or innocence is NOT germane to the function of the Grand Jury. They just need to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the charges.
Further, whether the Grand Jury is indictment only or investigative in nature, the DA should have walked the Grand Jury through how evidence supported the charges. That never happened and that is the exact role of the DA in the Grand Jury process. Rather, they functioned as Officer Wilson's defense attorney.
That's just wrong.
Procedurally, this whole thing was wrong and no amount of rationalization make it right.
And...I'll say again I don't think he'd have been convicted at trial.
But he should have GONE to trial. Because, on principle, that's how the legal process is supposed to work and he shouldn't have been treated differently.
EDIT: Btw, why is everyone totally ignoring Justice Scalia's DEFINITION from 1992 on Grand Juries and their limitations that I posted? He can't be too liberal. And by his definition, McCulloch misused the Grand Jury. So what gives? Scalia said NO to all this "Grand Juries should see everything" bit. Neither here no in England has that EVER been the case. He was strong on it. I'm just curious, because of all the things I've posted on this, not one mention of Scalia has come up and that's probably the strongest thing indicting McCulloch's behavior.
I've been reading up on the case Scalia was referring to and grand jury / prosecutor responsibilities. I'm guessing your drawing your arguments from far left web sites because they are skewing the facts pretty consistently across them with the same arguments.
This seems to be a good explanation of why, in a self defense case, the prosecutor will offer exculpatory evidence.
"
Self-Defense: Not Your Usual Legal Defense
Why? Because self-defense is a fundamentally different defense than alibi or misidentification or any other non-justification defense.
When a defendant argues an alibi defense, he is not contesting that a crime has been committed. Indeed, whether a crime has been committed or not is irrelevant to his defense, because his defense is that regardless of whether the underlying crime occurred,
he was not there. Whoever committed the claimed criminal acts, they were committed by someone else.
But a
crime was committed. Indeed, if the prosecution
cannot establish that fact, for example if they cannot present probable cause on any element of the criminal charge, the Grand Jury is
required to not indict.
Similarly with a misidentification defense. Again, the defendant is not contesting that a crime has been committed, but rather is arguing that whoever committed the crime, it was some person similar in appearance to him,
but not him.
But again a
crime was committed. Indeed, if the prosecution
cannot establish that fact, for example if they cannot present probable cause on any element of the criminal charge, the Grand Jury is
required to not indict.
A justification defense such as self-defense is a different animal of legal defense entirely.
Self-defense
does not contest that the defendant committed the underlying acts. It
does not claim that he was somewhere else, as in an alibi defense, or that some similar appearing person other than him committed the acts, as in a misidentification defense.
Self-defense effectively requires the defendant to concede to having committed the charged acts. One cannot simultaneously refuse to have committed the charged acts and simultaneously claim self-defense–to do so is an outright logical inconsistency.
Self-defense is an inherently deliberate act–you perceived a threat, and acted against it.
More importantly, an act of self-defense
eliminates completely any criminality associated with the underlying actions that would otherwise be criminal.
Self-Defense Eliminates the Criminality of What Would Otherwise be a Criminal Act
In other words, self-defense acts to eliminate the criminality of the underlying acts, and thus effectively becomes a negative element of the criminal charge. It is for this reason that 49 of 50 states require that at trial it
is the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt–just as the prosecution must prove each and every element of the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
More simply,
if an otherwise criminal act was committed in self-defense, no crime has been committed at all.
It is the duty of the Grand Jury to determine whether there exists probable cause
that a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is the person who committed the underlying acts.
In a self-defense case, of course, the second question is not contested–the defendant concedes up front that he committed the underlying acts, else he would not be entitled to claim self-defense at all.
The first question, however–there’s the rub.
In order for the Grand Jury to determine whether there exists probable cause that has been committed in a self-defense case, they must do more than merely determine whether there exists probable cause as to each and every element of the criminal charge. This they must do, surely, because if they do not the Grand Jury will be instructed to not indict.
But in a case involving self-defense, probable cause on each and every element of the criminal charge is
necessary but not sufficient for an indictment.
Why? Because probable cause could exist on each and every element of the criminal charge and yet probable cause of a crime necessary to support an indictment still be lacking.
Why?
Because self-defense eliminates the criminality of the otherwise criminal underlying acts.
If Evidence of Self-Defense Is Adequate To Eliminate Probable Cause of a Crime, There Can Be No Indictment
A shooting done in self-defense, then,
is simply not a crime at all, and
if there is no crime there can be no indictment.
If
either the evidence on the elements of the criminal charge is
inadequate to support probable cause that a crime has occurred,
or the evidence on self-defense is
sufficient toeliminate probable case that a crime has occurred, the outcome from the Grand Jury’s perspective must necessarily be the same:
no-true-bill.
Thus, just as it is perfectly appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on each and every element of the criminal charge, it is equally appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on the matter of self-defense.
To Deny That the Grand Jury Should Consider Self-Defense is to Embrace an Absurdity
Indeed, to deny that the Grand Jury should consider self-defense is to embrace a legal and logical absurdity.
As noted, in cases of self-defense,the defendant necessarily concedes the underlying criminal acts, but defends them on the grounds that he was legally justified to commit the acts as a matter of lawful self-defense.
Were the Grand Jury be permitted to consider
only the concession of the use of force, but not the claimed justification, then each and
every act of self-defense would necessarily result in an indictment and be brought to trial, no matter how strongly the evidence in its totality supported the justification of that use of force.
A Secret Service Agent cuts down an assassin moments before the killer can take the President’s life, all caught on cameras by news agencies worldwide as the President delivers a major policy speech? Sorry, Agent, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at the trial. After all, he concedes he committed the killing, and merely claims legal justification for doing so–but the Grand Jury is not permitted to hear the justifcation.
A maniac gunning down children in a school is shot and killed by the school resource officer assigned to that duty, all events testified to by scores of surviving teachers and students? Sorry, officer, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at trial. Again, the Grand Jury is permitted to hear the concession of the use of force, but not the justification.
A murderously abusive husband invades his wife’s place of work, killing her colleagues with shotgun blasts as he seeks her out, until a security officer takes him out with a well-placed gun shot to the head, all events caught on the company’s CCTV system? Sorry, sir, here’s your indictment, we’ll see you at trial. You get the idea.
I suggest that no reasonable or moral person could possibly argue for such legal outcomes."
