Yesterday, I recapped the events that led up to, and included, the senseless murders of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner. This posting is about police procedure and the legal elements and ramifications of the events that unfolded.
PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL
THE MICHAEL BROWN CASE
While there were rampant rumors after his death about Michael Brown having a criminal record, the truth is that he had no criminal record. Those rumors were clear attempts to smear the character of Michael Brown, so that it looked like he deserved to die.
Let me be clear, Michael Brown did not deserve to die.
Regardless of who used profanity first, Officer Darren Wilson was using standard procedure in terms of wanting Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to get out of the street. How he did this -- he asked or he unprofessionally barked a profane command -- is fair game for question, but wanting to people to get out of the middle of the street is fine. I do not think that the two being close to their home, as Dorian Johnson stated, was germane.
At the height of the confrontation, as Officer Wilson recounted it, he had several options open to him. He called for backup, but he could have retreated a bit until backup arrived. He did not. Yes, sitting in a car, as Officer Wilson was, is a compromised position, one that puts someone at a disadvantage to someone who is standing. However, when Wilson exited the car, he still had options. Retreat to behind the car, for one. If Michael Brown was charging Officer Wilson, and he felt he absolutely had to fire his weapon, he could have shot Brown in the leg. That would have stopped someone, even if running full charge. Again, he did not. Finally, leaving Brown's dead body uncovered in the middle of the street for approximately four-and-a-half hours is unconscionable and hardly procedural. Dead bodies are covered up at a crime scene, not only out of respect for the deceased, but to protect the body from any tampering and contamination. The Ferguson Police Department claimed leaving the body uncovered was part of protecting the crime scene.
The number of shots fired is excessive ... unless Officer Wilson was a bad shot. Six to seven wounds -- one wound may have been a re-entry wound -- in Brown's body and a total of ten bullets fired. When retreat or a shot in the leg would have ended this confrontation altogether differently, were ten total shots necessary?
Even though Robert McCulloch is the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, the prosecution's case was presented by Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizade and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Sheila Whirley instead. This was likely an attempt to quell the requests for a special prosecutor for this case, all of which were denied and McCulloch having stated he would stay on.
Several issues have risen as serious concerns in the prosecution's presentation to the grand jury. One is what has been called a"data dump". That is an instance where all of the evidence possessed by one side is presented en masse to the jury, or dumped on the jury. It is a jury's job to look at all evidence presented to them, and not to decide that the prosecutor has dumped too much on you and so you will vote against what the prosecutor wants as a form of payback.
What the prosecutor wanted in this case is part of the second issue. It was never stated by the prosecution that it sought a decision to indict Officer Wilson, which is typically presented to the jury. How prosecutors Alizade and Whirley presented in the courtroom is also a problem. Just three days before the grand jury would render its decision, prosecutor Alizade said this the to the jurors:
Let me be clear, Michael Brown did not deserve to die.
Regardless of who used profanity first, Officer Darren Wilson was using standard procedure in terms of wanting Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to get out of the street. How he did this -- he asked or he unprofessionally barked a profane command -- is fair game for question, but wanting to people to get out of the middle of the street is fine. I do not think that the two being close to their home, as Dorian Johnson stated, was germane.
At the height of the confrontation, as Officer Wilson recounted it, he had several options open to him. He called for backup, but he could have retreated a bit until backup arrived. He did not. Yes, sitting in a car, as Officer Wilson was, is a compromised position, one that puts someone at a disadvantage to someone who is standing. However, when Wilson exited the car, he still had options. Retreat to behind the car, for one. If Michael Brown was charging Officer Wilson, and he felt he absolutely had to fire his weapon, he could have shot Brown in the leg. That would have stopped someone, even if running full charge. Again, he did not. Finally, leaving Brown's dead body uncovered in the middle of the street for approximately four-and-a-half hours is unconscionable and hardly procedural. Dead bodies are covered up at a crime scene, not only out of respect for the deceased, but to protect the body from any tampering and contamination. The Ferguson Police Department claimed leaving the body uncovered was part of protecting the crime scene.
The number of shots fired is excessive ... unless Officer Wilson was a bad shot. Six to seven wounds -- one wound may have been a re-entry wound -- in Brown's body and a total of ten bullets fired. When retreat or a shot in the leg would have ended this confrontation altogether differently, were ten total shots necessary?
Even though Robert McCulloch is the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, the prosecution's case was presented by Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizade and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Sheila Whirley instead. This was likely an attempt to quell the requests for a special prosecutor for this case, all of which were denied and McCulloch having stated he would stay on.
Several issues have risen as serious concerns in the prosecution's presentation to the grand jury. One is what has been called a"data dump". That is an instance where all of the evidence possessed by one side is presented en masse to the jury, or dumped on the jury. It is a jury's job to look at all evidence presented to them, and not to decide that the prosecutor has dumped too much on you and so you will vote against what the prosecutor wants as a form of payback.
What the prosecutor wanted in this case is part of the second issue. It was never stated by the prosecution that it sought a decision to indict Officer Wilson, which is typically presented to the jury. How prosecutors Alizade and Whirley presented in the courtroom is also a problem. Just three days before the grand jury would render its decision, prosecutor Alizade said this the to the jurors:
"Previously in the very beginning of this
process I printed out a statute for you that
was, the statute in
Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all
want to
get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along
with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of
Missouri does not
comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably
unfamiliar with you that the
law is codified in the written form in the
books and they’re called statutes, but
courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri
does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United
States supreme court
cases. So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that
you know
don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn’t comply
with the law."
Alizade then handed copies of a new explanation regarding laws about deadly force to the jury. After doing so, she continues:
Part of the prosecution's presentation included witnesses who clearly had not seen the entire incident or whose testimony was deemed irrelevant to the case before the case went to the grand jury. Why present those witnesses if you know they will be unhelpful or possibly cloud the issue for jurors? Why indeed!
Included in Officer Wilson's testimony to the grand jury was a recounting of the size of Michael Brown and how he feared not just for his safety, but for his life. Officer Wilson is no small man and even though Michael Brown was bigger than him, his claim that he had taken two punches and was afraid a third one could have been fatal is not backed up by photos of him taken at the hospital after the incident. He was diagnosed with a facial contusion, which is simply a bruise, and nothing more than minor scratches on the back of his neck. Either those punches were not as life-threatening as Office Wilson described or they never took place. From the photos, if what Office Wilson said was true, he looks as though he was clearly holding his own.
The announcement that the grand jury had reached its decision was made the day of the jury's decision, not before. In what would be a full week before any decision had been reached, let alone an announcement of the decision, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed a state of emergency declaration, which allowed him to deploy the National Guard to Ferguson. The already militarily-equipped police, which were clearly seen during protests that followed the shooting of Brown, would now be joined by Missouri's National Guard.
"[This new document] does correctly state what the law is
on when an officer can
use force and when he can use Deadly Force in
affecting an arrest, okay. I don’t
want you to get confused and don’t
rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute
that I’ve given you a
long time ago.
It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct,
ignore it totally..."
Her handout included a old statute which was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly thirty years ago. (In short, the old statute: Officer's belief of threat to life; the 1985 Supreme Court ruling result: Must be both officer's belief AND probable cause.) Alizade did not want the jurors to be confused? She chose a rather peculiar way of showing it.
Part of the confusion I would suspect felt by at least some of jurors, if not all, came forth when a juror asked if Federal court supersedes Missouri state statutes. Alizade replied,
"As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that."
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Sheila Whirley added,
"We don't want to get into a law class."
Alizade and Whirley used a total of twenty-one words when only one word was necessary to answer the juror's question ... yes.
Part of the prosecution's presentation included witnesses who clearly had not seen the entire incident or whose testimony was deemed irrelevant to the case before the case went to the grand jury. Why present those witnesses if you know they will be unhelpful or possibly cloud the issue for jurors? Why indeed!
Included in Officer Wilson's testimony to the grand jury was a recounting of the size of Michael Brown and how he feared not just for his safety, but for his life. Officer Wilson is no small man and even though Michael Brown was bigger than him, his claim that he had taken two punches and was afraid a third one could have been fatal is not backed up by photos of him taken at the hospital after the incident. He was diagnosed with a facial contusion, which is simply a bruise, and nothing more than minor scratches on the back of his neck. Either those punches were not as life-threatening as Office Wilson described or they never took place. From the photos, if what Office Wilson said was true, he looks as though he was clearly holding his own.
The announcement that the grand jury had reached its decision was made the day of the jury's decision, not before. In what would be a full week before any decision had been reached, let alone an announcement of the decision, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed a state of emergency declaration, which allowed him to deploy the National Guard to Ferguson. The already militarily-equipped police, which were clearly seen during protests that followed the shooting of Brown, would now be joined by Missouri's National Guard.
Militarily-equipped police aiming at protestors of the Brown shooting
The November 24 news conference to be held by Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announcing the grand jury's decision on whether or not to indict Officer Wilson was inexplicably delayed. The grand jury finished its deliberations and had come to a decision around lunch time. Roughly an hour or so later, it was announced that a decision had been reached. MuCulloch's news conference did not take place until some seven hours later ... at 8:00 p.m. local time ... well after night had fallen. The contentious nature of the case and what would be the grand jury's decision makes announcing at night time all the more dangerous for protestors and police alike. Knowing the contentious nature of this case makes McCulloch's choice of time to announce the decision strategically careless.
In his press conference announcing the grand jury's decision, Prosecutor Robert McCulloch gives a long, at times rambling, defense of the decision. Rather lengthy for announcing a grand jury decision. Here is the full press conference held by McCulloch:
It is my firm belief that, unless the Ferguson Police Department encourages rash behavior, Officer Wilson poorly followed standard police procedure, and that the grand jury process was handled improperly, skewing the jury's decision in favor of no indictment.
Terry
In his press conference announcing the grand jury's decision, Prosecutor Robert McCulloch gives a long, at times rambling, defense of the decision. Rather lengthy for announcing a grand jury decision. Here is the full press conference held by McCulloch:
It is my firm belief that, unless the Ferguson Police Department encourages rash behavior, Officer Wilson poorly followed standard police procedure, and that the grand jury process was handled improperly, skewing the jury's decision in favor of no indictment.
Terry
TOMORROW
PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL -- THE TAMIR RICE CASE
