I spoke with my parents today. I had recalled that Mom had served on a grand jury, but it turns out that Dad did too. I questioned them both extensively about their experiences. Please note that they did not serve in Missouri. But I presume all grand juries should be approximately the same. Let me know if you can see the similarities between their experiences and that of the Ferguson grand jury, below the orange cloud of justice denied.
Mom said that this was several years ago, but she thought that she served for about two months, for two or three days out of a week, sometimes skipping an entire week. During that time they heard multiple cases, she couldn't count how many. The most complicated case lasted no longer than a single day.
She recalls the prosecutor presenting his case through law enforcement witnesses. She recalls the defendant and his attorney in the room, but not speaking. She believes they were allowed to speak, but none ever did. The police and lab people would summarize what they found, such as drugs in a home, and the prosecutor would explain to the jury why this showed sufficient cause for the case to move forward. Then the grand jury would indict.
She does not recall any eyewitnesses to crimes, any hard cross examination, any surprises or contradictions, any presentation of the defense side of the case. She recalls following where the prosecution led them.
Dad said that his service was just a few years ago. He served for five weeks, during which time they met two to three days out of the week. He also said that he could not count how many cases they heard, it was so many. He said that a case could last for as little as one hour. The longest cases he recalls taking half a day.
He recalls the prosecution explaining to the grand jury why they wanted an indictment, perhaps showing a little physical evidence, and having a few eyewitnesses whose testimony illustrated the prosecution's case. Then the grand jury would find sufficient cause and indict.
He does not recall the presence of the defendant, any defense arguments or testimony, any hard cross examination, or any surprises or contradictions. His grand jury also pretty much just followed where the prosecution led them.
Both said that if they had been asked to serve for three or more months, during which time 4800 pages of testimony and other evidence had been dumped on them, much of it contradictory, they don't know what they would have done, but they would not have liked it. Especially with minimal prosecutor guidance, it would have been confusing, overwhelming, almost impossible to sort through, and over such a long course difficult to remember everything that might be pertinent. Both said that nothing they experienced ever resembled a trial, and they were never asked to decide guilt or probable guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence. They were just asked if there was sufficient cause to proceed to trial, and there always was.
I said, "It seems to me that practically the fact that they know who shot Michael Brown is enough cause to bring Darren Wilson to trial".
Mom said, emphatically, yes. In fact, she had thought that was what would happen in Ferguson. Based on what she knew of the case in the mainstream media (I have yet to convince my parents that they need a computer) and based on her grand jury experience, she had thought they would easily return an indictment, and then move to open court to present the details of both the case for the prosecution and the case for the defense, where guilt could be determined by a trial jury under public scrutiny. She thinks that is the proper forum for Darren Wilson to prove, if he can, that he:
reasonably believed that the action was in defense of human life, including the officer's own life
(The above quote is from the City of Ferguson Police Department’s use of force policy (section 410.01), as reported at
www.policeone.com.)
There you go. Straight from two people who have been part of the grand jury process themselves. They prove to me that I had the correct impression of grand juries when I stated in several comment threads: Bob McCulloch did not do his job. Women in his office presented the case, but I'm sure they were under strict instructions from him. The buck stops with the top prosecutor. Unlike every other grand jury proceeding, when the accused is a police officer, Bob McCulloch presents no coherent case.