Let me just tell you one thing: trials do not determine the truth. Their purpose is to weigh the evidence and decide whether an accusation is sufficiently proven to authorize the state to act, i.e., to punish the accused.

It's an axiom of our law that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent man. That's why criminal trials require the highest burden of proof in the law: beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence shows that the defendant probably committed a crime, but there exists a reasonable doubt, the jury not only can acquit, it is required to do so. Indeed, the evidence of guilt can be said to be "clear and convincing," but if there remains a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.  Trust me, you would not want it to be any other way.

All of this debate about the grand jury is much ado about nothing, because when a prosecutor knows he cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, he is required to not even try.

The prosecuter knew this going in and only the inflammatory and misleading coverage of the evidence in the media and the racial storyline brought into the case by outside media and activists caused this prosecuter to do the simple thing from the beginning.  

To feed the media beast and the political forces at work he used the Grand Jury to put all the info out there so people wouldn't just have to take his word for it that no case against officer Wilson existed.

Unfortunately many have made up their mind, don't care if he probably didn't do anything wrong and just don't feel it's fair a white cop can shoot a young Black Man and nothing will happen.

To them I say to sorry.  

However IMHO you are not on the side of the Angels here and all the conspiracy theories and legal points are a smokescreen for the fact that you feel for whatever reason the only fair thing to do is charge what is most likely an innocent man according to the law with a crime so that maybe we'll get to some darker truth and your feelings will be justified.

Last time I checked that's not how it's supposed to work.  We charge people we think are guilty of a crime.   We don't send people to trial in the hopes we'll find out a crime was actually committed.

This is where you guys lose me.   The GJ was unusual?  What about a criminal trial where no one on the prosecution side thinks he's guilty of anything?   We shouldn't put individuals in jail because to pay for the sins of an entire system.

So yeah, we`re hoping that some outside group will take an interest in
it and ask Judge McShane to void the grand jury decision, impanel another
grand jury and allow for a special prosecutor to present the evidence in
the case the second time.

Under Missouri law (MO Rev Stat § 56.110) the presiding judge of the court with criminal jurisdiction -- in this case Judge McShane -- can appoint another prosecutor if the prosecuting attorney demonstrates a conflict of interest or bias. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly to include "conflicts that reveal themselves through the prosecutor's conduct in the case." In State v. Copeland, a 1996 case, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge "sensed that [the prosecutor's] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state." The judge "found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant's position."

The recent admission that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury builds on a pattern of conduct benefiting Wilson's defense that could justify the appointment of a new prosecutor. This included: vouching for police conduct to the grand jurors, gentle questioning of Wilson himself and aggressive questioning of any witness adverse to Wilson's defense.
link

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch Thursday night blasted the decision by Gov. Jay Nixon to replace St. Louis County Police control of the Ferguson situation with the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

"It's shameful what he did today, he had no legal authority to do that," McCulloch said. "To denigrate the men and women of the county police department is  shameful."

McCulloch noted that no one was seriously injured in the effort led by County Police Chief Jon Belmar until Nixon handed control of the Ferguson over to the state agency on Thursday.

"For Nixon to never talk to the commanders in the field and come in here and take this action is disgraceful," McCulloch said.

"I hope I'm wrong, but I think what Nixon did may put a lot of people in danger."

If he was going to be criticized anyway, why not decide to be criticized for doing the right thing and blocking untruthful testimony, rather than perpetuating it?

If you believe:

"if he were acting within the spirit of the rules, McCullough would not have brought the case to the grand jury in the first place.

If he was going to be criticized anyway, why not decide to be criticized for doing what you believe is the right thing; not to bringing the case before the Grand Jury in the first place.

That's not to say that this guy is a hack.  He doesn't even say what you seem to think he does--he says nothing about there needing to be a Missouri rule to "override" Williams.  Also, the Williams case is about the violation of a (federal) constitutional right to a grand jury. That particular right does NOT apply to the states. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). That means that the federal courts have no authority to impose rules on state grand juries, and that federal decisions about federal grand juries are not authority against the states.  That's because the right to a grand jury indictment descends from state constitutions and not the US constitution. The supreme court does not render opinions on the interpretation of state constitutions.

This is all elementary stuff and the author of the post gets it. In fact, he says that the federal rule announced in Williams doesn't apply to Missouri (I said this!), then he goes on to say he's not aware of any Missouri authority holding otherwise. (But he doesn't say he even looked--very serious analysis, this!).  He just sort of assumes that a Missouri court would agree with Scalia.  That's probably true.

But that doesn't mean what you think it means, because the issue in the Williams case was whether an indictment has to be thrown out if the prosecutor did not disclose exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. It was not a case about ethical obligations or the right way to conduct a grand jury. Rules of professional conduct and criminal procedure are not necessarily going to be the same.  Or, put another way, just because a prosecutor conducts himself unprofessionally (especially when it's a duty that is implied, inferred, discretionary, or aspirational), it doesn't mean that the case will be thrown out. And, of course, just because a prosecutor doesn't have to present exculpatory evidence, it doesn't mean he can't if he doesn't want to.

I note that Missouri definitely does require the disclosure of exculpatory evidence "known" to the prosecutor:

RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

Some states, I believe, specifically except grand juries from their version of this rule. Missouri doesn't.

So, in summary:

1. It is just a blog post; and

2. It doesn't disagree with anything I said.

Due to dehydration of the body after death there could be some very slight LOSS of height/length after death, but that is negligible (and would make him taller when alive than after death, not shorter as you seem to be claiming).

He was 77"/6'5" by direct measurement by a medical doctor.

Wilson 6'4" 210
Brown 6'5" 289