True. I would still prefer column 2 on the whole (more witnesses called, longer testimony), with the caveat that the next step has to be an indictment, or else you run the risk of only one side getting aired. And of course etc etc it does normally lead to an indictment but these circumstances are different.
Yes, but in this case, with column 1 or 2 the prosecutor was actually building a case against the proposed victim.
Yeah, there are good parts to this and bad -- I think in a "normal" indictment situation (no cops involved) the extended testimony, longer wait, leaving the charges up to the jury ... all very good things. In a situation like this one where a prosecutor has any number of reasons to protect the cop, all bets are unfortunately off. I'm waiting for someone to do a comprehensive summary of the released evidence. Want to look at it but don't have time to draw the conclusions myself.
No, not a good thing...a terrible thing! A jury is a panel of regular folks. They are not trained legal practitioners. They are in NO WAY qualified to decide what the appropriate charges should be in a case. The things you like, those are all part of a trial. That's the point of a trial, except in a trial it's all out in the open and there are two sides actually working towards a goal. In this instance the prosecutor torpedoed his own side as he had no intention of ever prosecuting a cop. With column 1 he has less room for manoeuvrability. With column 1 he has to present his case against Darren Wilson, suggest a charge and nothing more. In column 2 he gets to present both sides of the argument and no one else is on the other side to call him on it.leaving the charges up to the jury
all bets are unfortunately off
I assume juries who indict people when they haven't been given a list of charges they have to conform don't pull things out of their ass. I imagine it's more like: here are the 2000 whatever possible legal charges, pick some; as opposed to, here are the three things you are allowed to charge this person with, pick some. At least I hope so. That seems to increase the options the jury has, if they are willing to put some work in.No, not a good thing...a terrible thing! A jury is a panel of regular folks. They are not trained legal practitioners. They are in NO WAY qualified to decide what the appropriate charges should be in a case.