Michael Brown Case

[Patroklos]

No. It can be. It isn't always. You do realize that right?

[aerius]

I still want to know how Brown allegedly face planted on pavement from a full speed charge doing a scorpion pose in the process and only suffered minor scrapes to his face. Other than the obvious of course, that being Wilson was lying his fucking ass off about Brown charging at him full speed. And if you can't explain that then probable cause exists for an unjustified shooting and the case goes to trial. Simple as that.

[Thanas]

Patrokles, do you think that Wilson prevented a story free from contradictions? Because you seem to be hellbent on the idea that there was no room for any doubt at all. I can't see how one would be able to argue that no trial would be justified otherwise.

[Patroklos]

No, and if it were just Wilson's story at play I would say there was enough for a grand jury. Given what we know about witness testimony now I would not fault the prosecutor for not doing so either. I also would not fault a Grand Jury for not indicting either and would hope they would not based on the witness testimony we have access to.

However, once the forensics is taken into account there is no longer enough doubt to warrant even a grand jury, let alone a trial and certainly zero expectation that a conviction would result if there was. My opinion, but also that of the GJ.

[Terralthra]

You mean the grand jury, a member of which is now suing to be able to discuss the ways in which the evidence was misrepresented by the prosecutor to avoid an indictment? That grand jury?

[Patroklos]

I am going to assume you are just reading pop headlines and inventing what you think the story is. He is taking issue with the prosecutors conclusions broadcast in the wake of their vote. He wants the gag order removed so he can speak.

That in no way changes the vote, it is in no way relevant to the immediate discussion. You may retract the above when you bother to actually learn what you are talking about.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... e9633.html

In documents filed Monday in federal court in St. Louis, “Grand Juror Doe” wants freedom to challenge McCulloch’s comments, “especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges.”

The filing says that the heavily redacted grand jury documents McCulloch released Nov. 24 “do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury.” McCulloch spoke publicly that night about the grand jury’s decision against charging Wilson.

...

The suit says that speaking publicly could “contribute to the current public dialogue concerning race relations” that was sparked by the shooting Aug. 9 of the black teen by Wilson, a white officer.

Doe also wants “to advocate for legislative change to the way grand juries are conducted in Missouri,” the suit says, and be able to talk about the case “with close family members at home.”

He just wants to put his spin on things. Where do you come up with this stuff?

And that last bits a doozy.

[Thanas]

No, and if it were just Wilson's story at play I would say there was enough for a grand jury. Given what we know about witness testimony now I would not fault the prosecutor for not doing so either. I also would not fault a Grand Jury for not indicting either and would hope they would not based on the witness testimony we have access to.

However, once the forensics is taken into account there is no longer enough doubt to warrant even a grand jury, let alone a trial and certainly zero expectation that a conviction would result if there was. My opinion, but also that of the GJ.

Ah, so you see no problem with the way the DA presented the case?

What is your legal expertise?

[Patroklos]

Upon rereading I mischaracterized Terralthra's post. He did not say he sued over the evidence as I took it but rather he was doing so to lift the gag order so he could talk about the proceedings including evidence without penalty. That is in fact the case.

@Thanas.

No. And as much expertise as the average poster here.

[aerius]

However, once the forensics is taken into account there is no longer enough doubt to warrant even a grand jury, let alone a trial and certainly zero expectation that a conviction would result if there was. My opinion, but also that of the GJ.

Really? Let's go back to what I wrote a few posts up.

I still want to know how Brown allegedly face planted on pavement from a full speed charge doing a scorpion pose in the process and only suffered minor scrapes to his face. Other than the obvious of course, that being Wilson was lying his fucking ass off about Brown charging at him full speed. And if you can't explain that then probable cause exists for an unjustified shooting and the case goes to trial. Simple as that.

That is all documented in the autopsy reports and Wilson's testimony. It does not square. Either both autopsy reports are wrong or Wilson is lying.

[Mr Bean]

I'm curious Patroklos, if a prosecutor threw a case against Jimmy "The Gent" Burke because there obviously was not enough evidence to convict dear sweet Jimmy would that be acceptable? In what sane world would a prosecutor being allow to throw grand jury cases lead to positive outcomes?

[Patroklos]

As I said before the misdeed by the prosecutor was that he allowed a grand jury in the first place.If a prosecutor doesn't think he has enough evidence he should not bring a case in the first place.

In your example I would hope a prosecutor with evidence contrary to his case, as was the case here, would turn it over to the defense to be presented to that jury. Or drop the case if it's as clearing as all that (as the forensics did here ). A grand jury is different as there is no defense, but it is a fact finding body to see if you should indict someone. How does that preclude presenting evidence beneficial to the accused? It's just indictment or bust? Truth be damned? Do you want the prosecutor to lie? To intentionally mislead jurors? In our system only the defense sort of gets to do that. Prosecutors have to turn over evidence.

I understand the objections to including witnesses one knows to be dishonest, but where does it say a prosecutor must restrict information to jurors to intentionally mislead into indictment?

The point is not to accuse people until you get the right one, having juries declare people innocent until you happen across the right guy. It is to bring people to trial that you, as the prosecutor, are convinced perpetrated a crime and one that you can prove. Do you think that was the case with this prosecutor? Doing anything else is to intentionally violate the rights of someone you know to be innocent.

[Gaidin]

To shorten the debate, iirc couldn't the prosecutor have just brought charges if he thou that the he had any case whatsoever in that state? Wasn't the grand jury basicall a modern version of pilate?

[Patroklos]

Yes, he could have. He could also bring the case to trial even if the grand jury does not indict though the trial judge has to go along with that. It varies per jurisdiction.

Since he didn't have a case and wasn't willing to do the first he should have used his power to stop this charade off the bat, but had he done that the outrage would have been crazy despite it being the just option. Instead he brought it to the grand jury knowing it was a loser case so that the mob could have its show trial and he could avoid being the one to decide not to go to trial all alone. The fact that it's an an injustice agains Wilson was secondarily to giving the mob their due.

If, and I don't know anyone who thinks this, the prosecutor actually believed there was a case against Wilson he probably would have gone to a grand jury as well as that would give him some distance to appease the police had they returned an indictment.

[aerius]

In your example I would hope a prosecutor with evidence contrary to his case, as was the case here, would turn it over to the defense to be presented to that jury. Or drop the case if it's as clearing as all that (as the forensics did here ).

You keep saying that as if repeating it enough times will make it true. Once again, I ask you to answer the following:

I still want to know how Brown allegedly face planted on pavement from a full speed charge doing a scorpion pose in the process and only suffered minor scrapes to his face. Other than the obvious of course, that being Wilson was lying his fucking ass off about Brown charging at him full speed. And if you can't explain that then probable cause exists for an unjustified shooting and the case goes to trial. Simple as that.

You will note that SD.net debating rule #5 is now in effect. Put up or shut up time. Asshole.

[Patroklos]

In your example I would hope a prosecutor with evidence contrary to his case, as was the case here, would turn it over to the defense to be presented to that jury. Or drop the case if it's as clearing as all that (as the forensics did here ).

You keep saying that as if repeating it enough times will make it true. Once again, I ask you to answer the following:

I still want to know how Brown allegedly face planted on pavement from a full speed charge doing a scorpion pose in the process and only suffered minor scrapes to his face. Other than the obvious of course, that being Wilson was lying his fucking ass off about Brown charging at him full speed. And if you can't explain that then probable cause exists for an unjustified shooting and the case goes to trial. Simple as that.

You will note that SD.net debating rule #5 is now in effect. Put up or shut up time. Asshole.

1.) You never asked me a question. Your post neither quotes me nor mentions my name, and it follows a post by me that is in no relation to your question. Learn to communicate.

2.) Gladly. He could have fallen on his side and then rolled to the font where he settled. He could have initially fallen on his arm and then slid off of it to a stop. He could have stopped his momentum with his knees and collapsed forward from there with far less force. Or his abrasions were not all that minor since the autopsy (one of them at least) says no such thing. Let me quote what that one actually says:

There is an abrasion present near the right forehead that measures 7.0cm in greatest dimension. There is a dried abrasion near the lateral right face that measures 3.5cm in greatest dimension. There is an abrasion present near the upper right cheek that measures 3.0cm in greatest dimension. There are scattered abrasions present near the lateral right surface of the lower lip that range in size from .01-.02cm in greatest dimension.

Later in the summary

Other Injuries: Face, left hand, right chest, left forearm, left forearm [he says this twice, I assume as a type], left hip; abrasions

http://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf-auto ... f6878.html

Translation: his face was busted. Nothing about minor. Do you consider 7cm abrasions across your face minor? Not only that, but other parts of his body also had abrasions, including through clothing, which would be consistent with bodily hitting the pavement. What is an abrasion you ask?

In dermatology, an abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal. Mild abrasions, also known as grazes or scrapes, do not scar or bleed, but deep abrasions may lead to the formation of scar tissue. A more traumatic abrasion that removes all layers of skin is called an avulsion.

Abrasion injuries most commonly occur when exposed skin comes into moving contact with a rough surface, causing a grinding or rubbing away of the upper layers of the epidermis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrasion_%28medical%29

In case that seems to "minor" to you these are examples covered by that included with that source and definition:




Yeah, 7cm of that just on one part of the face amongst other abrasions both on his face and other parts of his body.

So since these injuries described in the autopsy which are completely consistent with "comes into moving contact with a rough surface, causing a grinding or rubbing away of the upper layers of the epidermis", like for example hitting and sliding on the pavement, apparently don't suit you why don't you tell us exactly what you think his injuries should be so I can inform the medical community. They have a lot of books to correct.

oh yeah. ASSHOLE.

[Simon_Jester]

The fact is it should never have gone to a grand jury in the first place because the prosecutor knew all evidence pointed to Wilson being in the clear and every thinking person exposed to the evidence before and after knows this to be the case.

There was a "show trial" already, it was the grand jury that had no business being called in the first place. That was the miscarriage or justice.

Then why did the prosecutor allow "witnesses" who weren't at the scene and basically just copy-pasted the newspapers' version of Wilson's story? Even if the prosecutor was pressured into holding the grand jury hearing, he's still required to adhere to basic professional standards. He can't put someone on the stand when he has reason to believe they're lying.

His job is firstly to decide whether to take a case to the grand jury in the first place based on its merits. Do you think that's is what happened? That the prosecutor freely and without undue influence called that grand jury? This is where his misconduct occurred. Obviously a grand jury proceeding is going to be odd if there was no basis for it to exist in the first place.

Regardless of whether the prosecutor felt influenced to call a grand jury or not, the prosecutor still has to do his job during the grand jury hearing.

And yet... Obvious liars took the stand. With the prosecutor's approval. That is prosecutorial misconduct.

Moreover, the fact that McCulloch allowed obvious liars to take the stand and did virtually nothing to question Wilson's narrative of events is rather damning of the claim that he was being objective or professional. It suggests that if his 'professional' judgment was that a grand jury hearing was unnecessary... that had more to do with his biases than with anything else.

Him having killed Brown is simply a fact, innocence or guilt has no part in it. That is not the purpose of a trial, there can be extenuating circumstances justifying his action without one as in fact happened in this case. There are lots of cases involving killing involving or not involving police officers that to not go to trial. The purpose of a trial is to assess guilt if there is a suspicion of a crime. Since there is no suspicion of a crime, there is no trial. Wilson is innocent as default.

The argument here is that there was considerable evidence to suspect a crime, but that the prosecutor decided to ignore this evidence, then knowingly muddied the waters at the grand jury hearing in an attempt to ensure that no trial would take place.

Again, the prosecutor calling a grand jury is not and should not be a forgone conclusion (In MO, other states differ). There is and should be room for differing opinions as to whether a grand jury was justified or not, but when you state that there had to be one and we should have found a prosecutor that believed that utterly and would push this to trial no matter what all you are asking for as a bias in your direction.

The prosecutor does NOT always have discretion to decide to NOT pursue a trial.

In this case, there was considerable evidence that a crime might have been committed. There was enough evidence to at least get a trial rolling, what with the numerous witnesses testifying that Wilson acted improperly and the inconsistencies in Wilson's own testimony.

So the prosecutor had no grounds to say "I don't think a crime was committed" or "I don't think we have enough evidence to bring this to trial." In which case he does not have discretion to say "therefore, we don't need a grand jury hearing, let's forget the whole thing." He is required to at least try to do his job by prosecuting Wilson, and by making a good faith attempt to present the evidence suggesting he might be guilty at the grand jury hearing.

As I said before the misdeed by the prosecutor was that he allowed a grand jury in the first place.If a prosecutor doesn't think he has enough evidence he should not bring a case in the first place.

It has been repeatedly said that there are several inconsistencies in the defense's story AND that there are numerous eyewitness who say a wrongful killing took place.

In which case there is something very wrong with a prosecutor just arbitrarily deciding he doesn't have enough evidence to justify a trial. It suggests that there may have been foul play, or a blatantly biased prosecutor who refused to be swayed by actual evidence in front of his face.

In your example I would hope a prosecutor with evidence contrary to his case, as was the case here, would turn it over to the defense to be presented to that jury. Or drop the case if it's as clearing as all that (as the forensics did here ). A grand jury is different as there is no defense, but it is a fact finding body to see if you should indict someone. How does that preclude presenting evidence beneficial to the accused?

If the "evidence" beneficial to the accused is a woman testifying on the stand when she already admitted that she wasn't even at the scene of the crime...

Gee, wouldn't you think that's precluded?

I understand the objections to including witnesses one knows to be dishonest, but where does it say a prosecutor must restrict information to jurors to intentionally mislead into indictment?

By definition, NO party to a legal action is allowed to bring up witnesses they know are lying. That is called 'subornation of perjury.'

Because bringing liars in to commit perjury on the witness stand is NOT "providing information to jurors." It is actively polluting the pool of evidence, making a correct, accurate judgment far less likely. And making a mistrial very possible.

It is not the jury's job, and they are NOT asked, to determine whether witnesses are telling the truth. That's the whole point of making witnesses swear to be honest- and of making it illegal for prosecutors to bring up witnesses they know are lying.

The point is not to accuse people until you get the right one, having juries declare people innocent until you happen across the right guy. It is to bring people to trial that you, as the prosecutor, are convinced perpetrated a crime and one that you can prove.

In this case, a reasonable prosecutor had ample reason to think a crime had been committed. McCulloch's failure to make that decision means he is at best incompetent and at worst actively plotting to help a criminal escape charges.

Which is among the greatest breaches of professional conduct a prosecutor could commit.

[aerius]

I know what an abrasion is and that's why I brought up the autopsy results. The gunshots through the top of his head would've killed him instantly, meaning Brown has no way to break his fall. How does a big man like him fall on pavement from a full charge and only suffer abrasions? If you were running at me on pavement and I tripped you on your face, you'd end up with lacerations all over your body and your face would look like hamburger meat. If you don't think so, you're welcome to try it out with a friend, just GoPro it and post up the video.

And yes, I'd consider 7cm abrasions, on the longest axis, to be minor. I've had worse from falling on the playground pavement when I was a kid. Hell, I've had worse from sliding into the base at a ballpark, and gravel ain't nearly as bad as pavement when it comes to removing skin & flesh.

[Patroklos]

@Simon

If there is something in particular you want me to respond to I will, but this is boiling down to your opinion versus mine. I can't and won't convince you and this is just ping pong at this point. So I am leaving it at that unless someone like aerius wants to continue willfully misrepresenting cold hard facts such as the forensics.

For the record I understand and agree with the witness #40 objections, it is the only objections to the proceedings that have legal merit. I don't think it had any effect on the outcome.

I know what an abrasion is and that's why I brought up the autopsy results. The gunshots through the top of his head would've killed him instantly, meaning Brown has no way to break his fall. How does a big man like him fall on pavement from a full charge and only suffer abrasions? If you were running at me on pavement and I tripped you on your face, you'd end up with lacerations all over your body and your face would look like hamburger meat. If you don't think so, you're welcome to try it out with a friend, just GoPro it and post up the video.

If you knew what an abrasion is you wouldn't be considering it to be an automatic booboo instead of exactly what road rash from a motorcycle accident is:




These are from people falling off of motorcycles going god only knows how fast. Those are both abrasions only. Anything short of rupturing your entire epidermis no mater the area is still an abrasion for the most part. Maybe the issue is that you also don't know what a laceration is?. And while I can certainly see how you might get lacerations from a fall like that I see no reason why you have to have them.

As far as falling this guy was hit by several gun shot wounds in quick succession. We have no idea what his bodies reflex reaction was to that or what the impact of those bullets did the the physics of his falling body. The idea that he just straight up face planted is a figment of your imagination and unprovable, but since there were visible abrasions on his hip through clothing its clear his face didn't take the full force of his fall.

In any case since you consider an abrasion the size of your nose to be no big deal, even when it is accompanied by several others over your face and body there is no point in taking you seriously here. Nothing short of a decapitation is going to satisfy you.

And yes, I'd consider 7cm abrasions, on the longest axis, to be minor. I've had worse from falling on the playground pavement when I was a kid. Hell, I've had worse from sliding into the base at a ballpark, and gravel ain't nearly as bad as pavement when it comes to removing skin & flesh.

You realize longest axis could mean a circle right? Probably not, but do you have a face pic? An injury, potentially seven square inches, on your face. Believe what you want, you are factual incorrect that Brown does not have injuries consistent with falling on pavement at something short of motorcycle accident speeds.

[Mr Bean]

I understand the objections to including witnesses one knows to be dishonest, but where does it say a prosecutor must restrict information to jurors to intentionally mislead into indictment?

Because his job title is prosecutor don't straw-man. If he's gotten to the point where a grand jury has been convened then the prosecutor has to have at least sufficient evidence that prosecution is justified. This process is designed to be a sanity check on the judicial process and prevent State Attorneys from being able to invent charges to throw people they don't like in prison for months without legal recurse. After all if the Prosecution can not make it's case when there is no defense present it's likely a shitty case.

Which brings me back around to the point, why is letting Prosecutors play both sides of the court a good thing? Please remember Paktroklos that a grand jury is not step 1 or 2 in the criminal justice system process it's step three after first local investigators have collected evidence then police have gotten suspects and convinced the Prosecutor to charge the person in question with the crime. At that point the Prosecutor has to go before a judge and make a statement of facts that the possibility of conviction exists and then the trial system kicks in. It places three gates before the government can official accuse someone of a crime and make them come to trial.

On a side note if you did allow this idea of the Prosecution presenting not only it's own case but the Defenses theoretical case at a grand jury you've just shrunk down the amount of corrupt officials you need greatly since before if a prosecutor deliberately tanks a grand jury trial it creates notice, atttention and possible sanctions but under your method it's simply business as usual if the Prosecutor takes a dive on the charges.

[Patroklos]

Because his job title is prosecutor don't straw-man. If he's gotten to the point where a grand jury has been convened then the prosecutor has to have at least sufficient evidence that prosecution is justified. This process is designed to be a sanity check on the judicial process and prevent State Attorneys from being able to invent charges to throw people they don't like in prison for months without legal recurse. After all if the Prosecution can not make it's case when there is no defense present it's likely a shitty case.

A prosecutors job is not to prosecute, its to find justice. That many times means NOT prosecuting. Its telling the cops they have the wrong guy. Its telling the ADA their case is shit and to drop it. Its recognizing the case has changed and not pursuing it when innocence is pointed to.

Part of the point of a grand jury is to present your case and see if it warrants a prosecution. To see if you actually have a case. How could a grand jury know that if you don't show them the things you know that would torpedo your case? Things you know are factual but don't help you. If I can simply omit anything I want I can indict anyone of anything. I get the process has become a rubber stamp but given the stated goal or a grand jury should that be the case? The very term "rubber stamp" tells me no it shouldn't. Whats the point if it is?

Which brings me back around to the point, why is letting Prosecutors play both sides of the court a good thing? Please remember Paktroklos that a grand jury is not step 1 or 2 in the criminal justice system process it's step three after first local investigators have collected evidence then police have gotten suspects and convinced the Prosecutor to charge the person in question with the crime. At that point the Prosecutor has to go before a judge and make a statement of facts that the possibility of conviction exists and then the trial system kicks in. It places three gates before the government can official accuse someone of a crime and make them come to trial.

Is that what happened here? You think McCullough looked at the evidence and was convinced by police a crime occured? Really? I sure don't, but as I have stated over and over that's just my opinion.

It is never a good thing to with hold the truth, and not doing so is not "playing both sides of the court". Even if what you want is an indictment and you truly believe its warranted it does you no good to get one by withholding evidence just to have that evidence used against you predictably later. If your case is solid and merit worthy it should be so regardless of what the defense has. In fact you don't know what the defense has so you better test out the foils you know about in a safe/confidential setting before hand. If you can't convince a grand jury using the low bar or probable suspicion in light of that whats the point of proceeding to a forum with an even higher bar?

It appears the grand jury has no purpose other than to provide the illusion of independent review. In fact grand juries can call witnesses and request information of their own accord. But would they know who to call? what to ask? If its just a "hey this is what I think as a prosecutor and here is my cherry picked evidence devoid of context" what have you accomplished? I guess if you can't even convince a grand jury of that you have avoided a few frivolous prosecutions but with their lower bar and the deck stacked like that how likely is it to happen that way if a prosecutor behaves like that?

On a side note if you did allow this idea of the Prosecution presenting not only it's own case but the Defenses theoretical case at a grand jury you've just shrunk down the amount of corrupt officials you need greatly since before if a prosecutor deliberately tanks a grand jury trial it creates notice, attention and possible sanctions but under your method it's simply business as usual if the Prosecutor takes a dive on the charges.

You keep saying he tanked it. Is there some law out there that says a prosecutor can't show a grand jury whatever he wants providing it is factual and or not compromised (in the case of witness testimony?). Again I understand how prosecutors (and I am not saying they can't use them that way) use grand juries now but is that how they are intended to be used? Is this an example of someone misusing the system or bucking a corrupt one?

And at the end of all this the prosecutor can still prosecute if they truly believe the grand jury got it wrong. There is no downside to showing all hands here.

[Terralthra]

I think it's neither. It's the system as it has evolved: grand juries almost always, to the point of near-complete reliability, give the result back that the prosecutor wants. That's what happened here, too.

[Patroklos]

So can a prosecutor who is pressured to prosecute but doesn't think its warranted use a grand jury to prove just that in the same way and fashion he does to do the opposite? Is that illegal?

[Simon_Jester]

@Simon

If there is something in particular you want me to respond to I will, but this is boiling down to your opinion versus mine. I can't and won't convince you and this is just ping pong at this point. So I am leaving it at that...

The problem I perceive is that you're saying "hah, the prosecutor was totally right to dismiss the whole case out of hand." The problem is that this requires ignoring numerous eyewitnesses, inconsistencies in the suspect's testimony and in his superior's representation of the facts, and what appears to be at least some disagreement about how to interpret the forensics.

Even if the forensics are a very solid set of evidence, this does NOT justify willfully incorporating witnesses who will lie about whether they were on the scene. Or taking the accused's testimony at face value when it is explicitly contradicted at various points.

Because his job title is prosecutor don't straw-man. If he's gotten to the point where a grand jury has been convened then the prosecutor has to have at least sufficient evidence that prosecution is justified. This process is designed to be a sanity check on the judicial process and prevent State Attorneys from being able to invent charges to throw people they don't like in prison for months without legal recurse. After all if the Prosecution can not make it's case when there is no defense present it's likely a shitty case.

A prosecutors job is not to prosecute, its to find justice. That many times means NOT prosecuting. Its telling the cops they have the wrong guy. Its telling the ADA their case is shit and to drop it. Its recognizing the case has changed and not pursuing it when innocence is pointed to.

That is their job- but they do not have unlimited latitude. If they are deciding to drop cases prematurely, while there are many unanswered questions, numerous witnesses, and unresolved inconsistencies in the testimony...

Let us just say that this invites accusations of prosecutorial bias and corruption.

It's one thing to refuse to prosecute when you have NO evidence, or to drop a case when it turns out your key evidence is deeply suspicious. It's not the same thing at all if you refuse to prosecute in the face of numerous eyewitnesses arguing about what happened, plus inconsistencies in the defense's testimony.

Part of the point of a grand jury is to present your case and see if it warrants a prosecution. To see if you actually have a case. How could a grand jury know that if you don't show them the things you know that would torpedo your case?

Because it's not the prosecutor's job to act as a defense attorney. Just as it's not the defense attorney's job to provide any evidence that might incriminate the defendant.

Fairness might well compel the prosecutor to at outline any alibis or evidence that would tend to exonerate the accused. But it does not compel the prosecutor to stop trying to make the case against the accused. To stop trying to pick apart inconsistent testimony, to indiscriminately accept and solicit the testimony of perjurers, to accept at face value a self-serving statement by the accused.

That is very much not what prosecutors are supposed to do.

And at the end of all this the prosecutor can still prosecute if they truly believe the grand jury got it wrong. There is no downside to showing all hands here.

Here, in addition to "showing all hands," including the ones that are lying, the prosecutor also stops to present evidence of the defendant's version of the story being anything less than the absolute, unquestioned truth. Even when it contradicts statements made earlier in the history of the case.

At that point, yes there is a downside, and no, letting the prosecutor decide to keep pressing charges after the grand jury hearing won't matter. Because the problem is not "the prosecutor showed both sides." The problem is "the prosecutor threw the fight."

[J]

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/72 ... ry-mistake
Summary: The prosecutors knowingly provided an outdated statute in the instructions to the jury with regards to shooting a fleeing suspect. Before Tennessee v. Garner in 1985 it was legal to shoot a fleeing suspect on a general basis. The jury was told that this is the law in its instructions when it has not been the case for nearly 30 years. This was corrected months later in about the most ambiguous way possible.

That is prosecutor misconduct, and a strong case can be made that it constitutes perjury. This is in addition to the subornation of perjury incidents I noted earlier.

If, as Patroklos claims, there is no evidence to indict, the correct course of action would be to hold a press conference and explain why that is. Deliberate misconduct and making a mockery of a grand jury is the worst possible thing to do, it erodes trust in the justice system and adds fuel to existing social & racial tensions. Oh, and no indictments for committing multiple felonies under oath. I believe the word is "privilege", in the pre French Revolution usage. See also, guillotines. That is not a path we want to travel.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So can a prosecutor who is pressured to prosecute but doesn't think its warranted use a grand jury to prove just that in the same way and fashion he does to do the opposite? Is that illegal?

Yes. Ethical obligations of lawyers. Once they take a case, they are not permitted to deliberately throw that case. They MAY NOT under ANY circumstance suborn perjury.