The Ferguson Grand Jury Made a Trial Unnecessary
One of the problems with the current grand jury system in America is that most of the time it is used as the personal instrument for advancing a prosecutor's career instead of as the impersonal instrument for the advancement of Justice. That is, the prosecutor usually presents only one side of a matter to see if there is probable cause to go to trial (especially if that case will help him win an election) - even if the prosecutor absolutely knows the defendant cannot be guilty.
As an example, I remind my readers of that immoral, lying piece of ratshit prosecutor, the former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who used the sole testimony of a crazy prostitute to get national exposure in the media in order to help him win election as district attorney.
Consider the following scenario: A black woman reports to police that she was gang-raped by a bunch of white college students. A prosecutor in search of a cause célèbre reviews the case and discovers that none of the students could possibly have committed the crime but sees great potential because he knows that Al Sharpton will bring national attention to the matter without investigating whether the charges have any merit.
To a grand jury, the prosecutor presents the sole testimony of the alleged rape victim ignoring the testimony of dozens of witnesses who swear that they were with the defendants at the time of the incident, omitting the reports of the medical staff that they found no evidence of a rape, the lack of semen or bruises, and other overwhelming evidence that there was no crime. Obviously in such a scenario the grand jury must indict, but is Justice served?
The original purpose of a grand jury was to prevent governmental or prosecutorial over-reach, to protect citizens from arbitrary and retributive government injustice. If a prosecutor presents only one side of the case we can be sure that 99% of the time he will be able to squeeze out an indictment, but that's like catching tuna with a net so fine that we ensnare microbes as well. Again, how is Justice served?
The Prosecutor in Ferguson Case Did the Right Thing
The prosecutor in the Ferguson case did the right thing by presenting all the witnesses, including most of those who swore that Michael Brown was not surrendering when he was shot. Offered as well were the reports from multiple medical examiners who affirmed the cop's version of what happened. What the Grand Jury had before them was all the stuff that a trial jury would have had and came to the same, correct conclusion that the officer did nothing wrong. A low-life prosecutor, seeking publicity instead of justice could have easily presented the sole testimony of the lying turd of a human being Dorian Johnson who swore that Brown was shot in the back which would have led to a completely unnecessary and expensive trial for no justicial purpose.
Race-baiters who claim we should have brought the cop to trial know that Brown was a thug and that the cop did nothing wrong but only want a long, drawn out affair so that they can continue the media exposure and attention that they have been receiving - it's all about what's good for Al Sharpton and other black demagogues and not the alleged victim.
To prevent miscarriages of justice, to prevent prosecutorial over-reach, to rein in evil, self-serving prosecutors we should insist that prosecutors at all times present both sides to a grand jury including exculpatory evidence that he or she may be aware of. Otherwise we will end up indicting ham sandwiches for murder if that's what the prosecutor needs in order to advance his career.
