A short time ago, I watched a segment on CNN in which, believe it or not, the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury proceeding was criticized for calling too many witnesses. And I just read an article at cnn.com which also questions the number of witnesses called. Here are a few key segments:
The grand jury in the case of Michael Brown\’s shooting didn\’t just face an onslaught of witnesses with conflicting memories of what happened the day white police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager. It also heard from witnesses who couldn\’t be believed at all.
Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning. Prosecutors were so skeptical of one woman\’s account that they asked whether she might have dreamed about seeing the confrontation in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.
Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides.
“It\’s no surprise that some people did not tell the truth in this or any other grand jury,” says CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
What is unusual in the Ferguson case is that prosecutors chose to call so many witnesses, including some whose credibility they doubted.
“Usually, a prosecutor applies her own screen to the witnesses — and only introduces evidence that she believes will be credible and believable,” says Toobin.
