Six ways the Ferguson grand jury is unusual

What makes this Missouri grand jury, deciding whether to charge a suburban St. Louis police officer for fatally shooting Michael Brown, so unusual.

Not much is normal about the Missouri grand jury responsible for deciding whether to charge a suburban St. Louis police officer for fatally shooting Michael Brown.

Not the length of deliberations, not the manner in which it has heard evidence, not the way in which its work could be made public. Then again, the case itself is unusual.

Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, shot the black unarmed 18-year-old shortly after noon on Aug. 9 in the center of a street, after some sort of scuffle occurred between them. As Brown's body lay there for hours, an angry crowd gathered. Riots and looting occurred the next night. In the following days, police responded with tear gas and smoke canisters as some protesters threw rocks and Molotov cocktails.

The Associated Press spoke with a veteran prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Missouri about the typical grand jury process — and the ways the Brown case is far from the norm.


At the time of Brown's shooting, a St. Louis County grand jury already had been hearing cases and was scheduled to disband Sept. 10. In one of the first indications that Brown's case would be different, a judge extended the jurors' service until January, the maximum amount of time allowed.

Whereas a typical case might be presented to a grand jury in a single day, this case has stretched over three months.


It's fairly common in Missouri for a prosecutor to first file a complaint charging an individual with a crime, then go later to a grand jury asking it to indict the person for that offense. In this case, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch hasn't publicly suggested any particular charge against Wilson.


Often, a grand jury hears testimony from just one or a few people, such as police investigators who summarize physical evidence and statements they've gathered from witnesses. In this case, McCulloch has said "all witnesses with any relevant evidence" were being summoned to testify.


Typically, a prosecutor presents only witnesses who would aid his quest for an indictment. The target of the inquiry does not typically testify. But Wilson testified to the grand jury considering charges against him. Grand jurors also heard from a forensic expert hired by Brown's family — unusual because such testimony typically comes only from government sources.


There often is no record of exactly what's said in Missouri grand juries. That's because only the jurors, witness and prosecutor are in the room. In this case, however, McCulloch's office has said the proceedings are being recorded and transcribed.


What's said in a grand jury typically remains secret under Missouri law, though when an indictment is issued, the evidence can be aired at a trial. If Wilson is not indicted, McCulloch says he will ask a judge for permission to publicly release the grand jury evidence as soon as possible.


Opinion is divided about whether the unusual aspects of this grand jury will inspire trust or skepticism.

Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd, a past president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, believes the differences are beneficial.

"At the end of the day, whether Officer Wilson is indicted or not, it's important that the public have confidence that the system worked as it should," Zahnd said. "For that reason, the grand jury going above and beyond the norm is very, very appropriate."

Susan McGraugh, supervisor of the Criminal Defense Clinic at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said all the exceptions to the norm appear to be heightening tensions among residents, particularly among racial minorities who believe they're treated differently by police.

The police officer is "getting a whole special grand jury process," McGraugh said. "I think it really adds to the consternation — you know, the frustration — that people are feeling."


Follow David A. Lieb at:

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Six ways the Ferguson grand jury is unusual
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today