There are several reasons why people are angry with the Michael Brown verdict. Some may be disturbed of the death of an unarmed civilian by a police officer, while others feel that had it not been for Mr. Brown’s race, a different outcome might have occurred.
In my opinion, there is a more far-reaching and deep-rooted reason which accounts for the hostility and outrage- the way the justice system process was administered in this case.
Everyone is familiar with the common phrase, “You can indict a ham sandwich”. This is because the burden of proof is very low in the grand jury setting. We are accustomed to indictments being routinely handed down, especially when there is a homicide.
In the present case, the prosecutor went so far as to present all the evidence in his possession to the grand jury – 24 volumes worth transcripts which include approximately 25 forensic reports and 63 witnesses. It lasted for three months.
Since the physical and scientific evidence supported that Officer’s Wilson used self-defense, the jury did not indict him. In all honesty, that is probably the same result that a jury would have reached in a jury trial.
The burning question though is why did the prosecutor treat this grand jury different from all other grand juries?
It would be disingenuous to respond that there was not an unusual and remarkable amount of effort to supply this grand jury with the whole picture.
The prosecutor went to great lengths in outlining the evidence that was presented, but did not explain why he went to such great lengths.
The public is only left to assume that since the accused in this case is a police officer, and the prosecutors work alongside with the police, that the prosecutor created the environment in this proceeding to enable the jury to not indict.
Even though the same result would have been achieved in a jury trial, it just doesn’t feel like justice because a short-cut was taken to reach that finish line. That is what is causing the underlying tension.
From a purely analytical view, it should not matter because the same result was achieved, just in a shorter time. But human beings are emotional, and feel hurt and violated when they see favoritism, or at least what appears to be so. Only resentment and distrust can follow from that.
In addition, the victim in this case is African American, and African Americans have been historically treated unfairly. This just compounds the anger and frustration this case.
Therefore, most are not upset at the jury’s decision, or even the fact that Officer Wilson was not indicted. They are upset that Officer Wilson was afforded more due process than the average person.
Can I say with certainty that had Officer Wilson been indicted and then later acquitted several months later that there wouldn’t be this reaction? No. But I do know that this approach by the St. Louis County Prosecutors Office was a recipe for disaster.
Lou Shapiro is a criminal defense attorney- state certified specialist in criminal law & legal analyst in Los Angeles. He can be reached through www.LouShapiro.com.
