• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Before Header

Call Now to Schedule a Consultation: (208) 571-0627

Atkinson Law Office Logo

Passionate Criminal Defense & Family Law Attorneys

Header Right

Please read our COVID-19 UPDATE for information on consultations and court proceedings.
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Criminal Defense Attorney
    • Drug Crime
    • DUI
    • DWP
    • Inattentive and Reckless Driving
    • Sex Offender Lawyer
    • Theft
    • Violent Crime
      • Aggravated Assault & Battery
      • Domestic Violence Attorney
  • Family Law Attorney
    • Divorce
    • Child Custody
  • Meet Your Attorney
    • Craig Atkinson
    • Dinko Hadzic
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
    • (208) 571-0627
  • Client Portal
  • COVID-19 Update
  • Criminal Defense Attorney
    • Drug Crime
    • DUI
    • DWP
    • Inattentive and Reckless Driving
    • Sex Offender Lawyer
    • Theft
    • Violent Crime
      • Aggravated Assault & Battery
      • Domestic Violence Attorney
  • Family Law Attorney
    • Divorce
    • Child Custody
  • Meet Your Attorney
    • Craig Atkinson
    • Dinko Hadzic
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
    • (208) 571-0627
  • Client Portal
Home » Idaho Law Blog » Ferguson, Grand Jury, and Indicting a Ham Sandwich

Ferguson, Grand Jury, and Indicting a Ham Sandwich

November 26, 2014 //  by Craig Atkinson

It is an old joke that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich if you wanted them to. The joke comes from the reality that Grand Jury proceedings are kind of a sham.

First, the burden of proof at a Grand Jury proceeding is probable cause.  The prosecutor must prove that there is probable cause to bring criminal charges against the Defendant.  Probable cause is the lowest burden of proof.  The only burden of proof lower is ‘reasonable suspicion’.   The burden an officer must have to stop a vehicle for example.

Second, neither a defense attorney, nor the defendant himself can be present at the Grand Jury proceeding.  The proceedings are closed proceedings.  You can imagine what the consequences are when you have one hand clapping. The prosecutor’s bias view rules the day.  There are rules of conduct that require the prosecutor to present evidence in mitigation, but you can only imagine the half hearted presentation that this evidence is given.

Consequently, anytime a prosecutor wants to indict a Defendant on a felony charge, he can do so.  It is a very rare occurrence for a Grand Jury to refuse to indict a Defendant.

That is what is so interesting about the Ferguson case.  Why didn’t the Grand Jury indict the officer that shot Michael Brown?  At a minimum it appears that there were conflicting statements from witnesses, some witnesses that say that Michael Brown was surrendering and still being shot.  Whether these witnesses are credible or not, why didn’t the grand jury at least find probable cause?  Did the prosecutor sabotage his own case in order to shift blame from himself to the Grand Jury?  Now the prosecutor can say, well I tried to charge the officer, but the Grand Jury refused to find probable cause.

What bothers me the most is not that the Grand Jury failed to indict the officer.  What bothers me is that under no circumstances would a Grand Jury have failed to indict anyone else that wasn’t wearing a badge.  There is a double standard in our country when it comes to self defense.  When an officer of the law defends himself, he is nearly always given the benefit of the doubt, and nearly always cleared of any wrong doing.  Anytime any other citizen defends themselves they face the very real possibility that they will be charged and convicted of murder.

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Opinion

Previous Post: « Famous last words: I am innocent, I do not need an attorney.
Next Post: Unprocessed rape kits are not a problem in Idaho, despite what the media says. »

DISCLAIMER: THIS BLOG/WEBSITE IS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE LAWYER OR LAW FIRM PUBLISHER FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AS WELL AS TO GIVE YOU GENERAL INFORMATION AND A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, NOT TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. BY USING THIS BLOG SITE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND THE BLOG/WEB SITE PUBLISHER. THE BLOG/WEB SITE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE.
© 2023 ATKINSON LAW OFFICE · DIGITALLY DEFENDED BY CYBERLICIOUS