As we are seeing in the Ferguson case, there is a difference between a grand jury and a trial jury but what is that difference?
At its most basic, a grand jury decides whether or not to charge someone with a crime. Typically the jurors serve for a couple months but only have to work a couple of those days. Prosecutors in grand juries aid the jury in understanding the law but overall, court proceedings are much more relaxed. Evidence can be presented to a grand jury that can't be used in a criminal trial. Also, everything is much more secret to protect suspects if they are found innocent. Important to note is that if a prosecutor disagrees with a grand jury, they can ignore the decision.
A trial jury, on the other hand, only works on the one case and stays until that case is finished. Trial courts are run by judges, rather than prosecutors. Also, witnessed have attorneys, unlike in grand jury proceedings. Trial juries do not have control over what evidence they can view, and trial juries do not have as many opportunities to ask questions.
After learning about the difference, why do you think the Ferguson case was so unique? Why did it take the grand jury so long and should it have gone to trial?
I think the Ferguson case was unique because of how the closing of the case impacted mostly the public perception of how cases are handled in the court system. The closing of Micheal Browns case defied what the public's expectations or wants were of the justice system, causing major unrest in Ferguson through riots and the rest of the US through social media discussion.
ReplyDelete