I have tried not to write much about the decision of the grand jury regarding the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. As someone who participated in the American court system for many decades, I know the basic truth that unless one is in the courtroom for a trial, hearing, or even the argument of a motion, it is impossible to predict the result with any accuracy. Even if one is in court and hears everything first hand, it is still difficult to predict the result for sure. What that means is that all the discussion and protest about the decision of the grand jury in Missouri is nothing but nonsense. That grand jury heard all manner of witnesses and saw physical evidence. Those who now announce with certainty what the result ought to have been are nothing but fools.
Today, we got another lesson in the uncertainty of the results of a grand jury. A grand jury in New York City decided not to indict the police officer in connection with the death of a man on Staten Island last summer. In this case, there is a video that shows part of the events that led to the man's death, a video which is replayed over and over again on cable news. When the grand jury decision was announced, it led to all manner of pundits announcing that there was something wrong or unbelievable about it. The group who denounced the jury decision was disparate. It included the usual people like Al Sharpton but also a great many on CNN and on Fox News as well. Even and insightful and intelligent person like Charles Krauthammer said that he could not understand how the grand jury could come to this decision given the video. But they are all wrong. None of these commentators saw or heard all the evidence. None of them understand the basis for the grand jury decision.
The really important point here is this: in neither Missouri or New York is there any reason to believe that the decisions of the grand juries were based upon bias or anything other than the evidence presented to them. That, indeed, is the point of the grand jury system. Before a person is arrested and forced to go through a trial, a group of citizens, namely the grand jury, looks at the evidence and decides whether or not the possible accused really needs to go through a trial. Did the grand juries give the cops the benefit of the doubt in these two cases? The answer is maybe and maybe not. We just don't know. But we don't have to know. All we need to know is that the grand jury looked at the evidence and made its own judgment.
Think of it this way: if all it takes is an angry crowd to force an indictment and a trial, then we have mob rule. The grand jury system is designed to prevent that from happening. It protects everyone. As long as we have this system, then people ought to stop second guessing the results.
Today, we got another lesson in the uncertainty of the results of a grand jury. A grand jury in New York City decided not to indict the police officer in connection with the death of a man on Staten Island last summer. In this case, there is a video that shows part of the events that led to the man's death, a video which is replayed over and over again on cable news. When the grand jury decision was announced, it led to all manner of pundits announcing that there was something wrong or unbelievable about it. The group who denounced the jury decision was disparate. It included the usual people like Al Sharpton but also a great many on CNN and on Fox News as well. Even and insightful and intelligent person like Charles Krauthammer said that he could not understand how the grand jury could come to this decision given the video. But they are all wrong. None of these commentators saw or heard all the evidence. None of them understand the basis for the grand jury decision.
The really important point here is this: in neither Missouri or New York is there any reason to believe that the decisions of the grand juries were based upon bias or anything other than the evidence presented to them. That, indeed, is the point of the grand jury system. Before a person is arrested and forced to go through a trial, a group of citizens, namely the grand jury, looks at the evidence and decides whether or not the possible accused really needs to go through a trial. Did the grand juries give the cops the benefit of the doubt in these two cases? The answer is maybe and maybe not. We just don't know. But we don't have to know. All we need to know is that the grand jury looked at the evidence and made its own judgment.
Think of it this way: if all it takes is an angry crowd to force an indictment and a trial, then we have mob rule. The grand jury system is designed to prevent that from happening. It protects everyone. As long as we have this system, then people ought to stop second guessing the results.
No comments:
Post a Comment