Since This Was A Grand Jury Hearing

[Segami]

and NOT a criminal trial,...does the 'double-jeopardy' law still apply or can Wilson still be charged at a later date if new evidence surfaces?

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means "in the past" in French), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence and hence that they cannot be retried under the principle of Double Jeopardy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

[Recursion]

1. Jeopardy per se has not attached yet, however

If McCullough takes it to trial directly, the judge will almost certainly take a dim view of overriding a no true bill.

[Lurks Often]

2. I suspect that would apply to any other county or state prosecutor as well

if one of them tried to take it to trial

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. double jeopardy does not apply

This was a probable cause hearing. If new information were to come in (for example some sort of confession), the case could be resubmitted to a grand jury for consideration of charges.

[Segami]

5. Would prosecutors 'withholding pertinent evidence'

be reasonable cause to resubmit 'to a grand jury for consideration of charges'?

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Yes ...

mis/malfeasance is a basis for resubmission. But that won't happen ... This is why the "prosecutor" released the evidence the GJ heard.

The bottom-line here is NOT the evidence/lack of evidence that was presented to the GJ for consideration; it was the manner in which the evidence was presented.

As many commentators have indicated, the GJ is a body of lay persons that take their lead from the prosecutor, who is SUPPOSED to place the State's best case before them for them to consider. When the "prosecutor" refused to bring a charge before them (in my experience, this is among the first things said in the State's presentation), it sent the message to the GJ that the prosecutor did not believe in the State's case. (Strike One)

Then, it is the prosecutor's job to down play that which does not help the state's case. Based on the press conference, I suspect the prosecutor's presentation made much of the unreliability of witness testimony. That is never a part of the State's case ... since (I would guess) 90+% of indictments are secured on the weight of eye witness testimony, even in the case where there is significant forensic evidence. In the case where the forensic evidence seems to contradict the eye witness testimony, the prosecutor typically plays UP the eye witness testimony. (Strike Two)

Then, (I'll have to wait for the wilson transcript to confirm this, but ...) I highly doubt the prosecutor treated wilson in the confrontational manner that would be typical for a prosecutor seeking to gain an indictment. wilson testified for about 4 hours ... in that time, any mildly competent prosecutor would/should have any defendant stumbling over the inconsistencies of statements. (Strike Three .. End of Game).

[unblock]

4. yes, prosecutors could go back to the grand jury again, if they wanted an indictment.

double jeopardy doesn't apply even at a trial until you get an actual not guilty verdict or if it's dismissed "with prejudice". if you "win" because of a hung jury or dismissal without prejudice, they can still pursue a second trial.

[NV Whino]

6. This can still be brought to trial

But it won't happen under this prosecutor.

The thing to remember is there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[Lee-Lee]

7. No, they could still go to trial- but from what I have seen they couldn't convict

I am about 60% through all that was released, and so far I see zero way any trial would result in a conviction.

The majority of witness statements I have seen thus far have some variation of Brown running toward Wilson. A few claimed otherwise, but at least one killed any credibility by initially making one statement then coming back with what he/she claimed was "the real truth". The others are contradictory about their accounts- some put him on his knees, some standing, some with hands up.

The forensic evidence lends credence to the accounts of him running foward. It doesn't support at all the accounts of Brown being on his knees with Wilson standing over him- the wound angles are all wrong.

I still have a lot to read- but so far nothing I see comes even close to the standard required for a conviction.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard. I realize most here made their minds up as soon as it happened, but if you try and be objective it just doesn't appear they would have a prayer of a conviction.

My opinion could change as I read on, but so far that is what I see.

[TBF]

10. Remember that you are only reading

the police's side of the story. Michael Brown, the unarmed kid who was gunned down, is not here to tell his side.

[Lee-Lee]

11. That's a great cliche saying, but it lends zero toward a conviction

Only what you can put in front of a jury matters.

[TBF]

12. Gee it would have been nice

to have a jury.

Here's an original thought for you: It would be nice if institutionalized racism didn't prevent a case to be quashed before it was even considered. If you have any understanding of the law you'd realize what you saw last night was the closing argument from Wilson's defense attorney. And that is not the role of the prosecutor in the grand jury process.

[TBF]

9. Yes they could try again with new

evidence. But I wouldn't hold my breath for Mr. Prosecutor to do so. You saw him. He has no interest in bringing Darren Wilson to trial as evidenced by his bizarre "statement" last night.