Grand Juries in the Spotlight After Ferguson and Staten Island Decisions
By Ken Zimmerman and Damon Hewitt
"Probable Cause" and the Role of Grand Juries
Recently, two grand juries have made decisions regarding the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York. In both cases, the grand juries declined to indict the police officers involved.
For an indictment to be issued, the grand jury must establish that there is "probable cause" to believe that the person has committed a crime. This means that a reasonable person would believe that the person is guilty based on the evidence presented.
The Ferguson Grand Jury's Decision
The Ferguson grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson was met with widespread protests and demonstrations. Many people felt that the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to warrant an indictment, and they questioned the fairness of the process.
The Staten Island Grand Jury's Decision
The Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo also drew criticism. Many people argued that the evidence presented to the grand jury showed that Pantaleo had used excessive force, and that he should have been indicted on manslaughter charges.
The Role of Grand Juries
Grand juries have been thrust into the national spotlight in recent weeks. These panels are typically used to determine whether there is enough evidence to support a criminal indictment. However, in the cases of Ferguson and Staten Island, the grand juries' decisions have been highly controversial.
The Impact of the Decisions
The decisions of the Ferguson and Staten Island grand juries have had a profound impact on the national debate about race and policing. These cases have raised important questions about the role of grand juries, the use of deadly force, and the relationship between law enforcement and minority communities.
Comments