Politics of the United States of America: Is it true that it is very rare for a grand jury to decide not to indict?

Yes, it is rare.  But it's also important to understand why a grand jury was used in the Ferguson situation.  The choice to use a grand jury here was less about the evidence and more about the politics of the situation.  If we assume that the information that was reviewed by the grand jury was accurate and reflects what actually happened (specifically, the autopsy results and the testimony of officer Wilson), then no prosecutor in their right mind would proceed with this case to trial.  There simply is not enough evidence that a crime was committed to make it past an initial motion to dismiss from the defense.

The grand jury is as much a political tool as it is a legal tool - in a case like this, it both insulates the prosecutor from criticism of his or her bias, and makes the process and the findings public (when records are released as they have been here).

The grand jury in the Ferguson case was used to provide transparency and a decision based on the evidence available -- so it's not really surprising that they would do something that is rare.

Read other answers by

Cliff Gilley on Quora:

• Is the grand jury decision not to indict Officer Pantaleo in the "chokehold death" and the Ferguson grand jury decision enough legal cause for the Justice Department to launch a broader civil rights investigation into such cases, or are they limited to investigating one particular case at a time?
• Was the grand jury hearing deciding whether Darren Wilson should be tried conducted improperly?
• Ferguson Grand Jury Decision (November 2014): What problems underlie the Ferguson, Mo riots and how do we fix them?

Read more answers on Quora.

from Quora http://ift.tt/1UFPgQn