Mike Brown Funeral

Lesley McSpadden along with family and friends walk behind the casket caring her slain son Michael Brown Jr., during Monday's services at Friendly Temple Baptist Church. Photo by Wiley Price/ St. Louis American

Americans who stay in school, as Michael Brown Jr. stayed in school, learn the rudiments of our legal system and typically have the opportunity to participate in a mock trial. When young people play roles in a mock trial, they are amazed by the discovery process. In the discovery process, both sides of our adversarial trial system are empowered to compel their adversary to turn over the evidence that will be used in trial to argue their case. By design – as few realize, until they study the law or observe the inner workings of a real trial – there should be no surprise evidence or testimony as a trial proceeds. Each side has to convince the jury or judge that their evidence and witnesses are credible, but before the trial starts all available evidence and witnesses are made known to both sides, if the judge and counsel on both sides are all competent and ethical.

This comes as a surprise to young people like Michael Brown Jr., who was 18 years old when he was shot and killed on August 9, because that’s not how it works in the movies. Court-room dramas typically hinge on the sudden emergence of a surprise witness or piece of evidence that, in the real world, would not be permissible in the middle of a trial proceeding. It also comes as a surprise because that’s not how it works in the media. A fair trial is a carefully adjudicated process with rigorous rules for admissibility of evidence and that all-important discovery process, where both sides are compelled to disclose in advance their evidence and witnesses. The media, on the other hand, is an open marketplace of information, where anyone at any time can produce any evidence or witness, of any degree of credibility, and producers and editors are bound by nothing more than their own ethics and judgment in deciding whether to go public with it.

Like the protest movement associated with the municipality, Ferguson, that employed the police officer who killed Michael Brown Jr., we believe there was sufficient evidence to charge Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson with the murder of this young man. Officer Wilson should have told his side of that story immediately in a detailed police report that should have been made public when the ACLU and other groups requested it through open-records laws. Wilson’s version of the shooting, as documented in the police report he was bound by duty to produce, and all autopsies of the deceased should have been open to public view for two months now, not shrouded in mystery. Or, conversely, they should have been sealed from public scrutiny by a judge, but made available to both sides in an adversarial trial process, where evidence should have been carefully vetted and challenged by both sides in open court, and all witnesses cross-examined by opposing counsel, in open court.

This did not happen, due to the decision of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, which we find suspect, and the political cowardice of Gov. Jay Nixon, which is legendary. In the absence of a fairly adjudicated, orderly and adversarial trial process, we have been thrown open to the tawdry open media marketplace, the ethics of which hit a new low this week. First the New York Times and then the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published versions of Officer Wilson’s testimony that would not have been admissible in court, given that each report was third-party anonymous hearsay. In each case, the reporter claimed to get the testimony from an unnamed person who allegedly heard it from an unnamed official who allegedly heard the testimony from Wilson. In plain terms, if questioned how they know what they are telling us to be true, the reporter’s answer would be, “Wilson told somebody who told somebody who told me.” In our view, this chain of testimony is far too weak for this information to be published or taken seriously – we need to hear from Wilson, not a reporter who listened to somebody who listened to somebody who listened to Wilson.

Everyone from the youngest, hardest protestors on the street to former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch took these anonymous third-party hearsay leak stories as evidence that Officer Wilson will not be charged with murder. The young brother on the street and the former top cop both came to the conclusion that the verdicts are known, by the grand jury and the Department of Justice, and we are now being shown selected pieces of evidence that support the verdict we will later be told. We do not have the privilege of challenging this evidence or cross-examining the witnesses; we only have the word of reporters and editors who themselves did not interview the witness or hold the relevant evidence in their hands.  We are left in the dark by irresponsibly unprincipled journalism and denied the light of the adversarial American justice system that should be the envy of the world, if it were only operated according to its principles.

The Times and Post ran with this anonymous third-party hearsay regarding a high-stakes case that has our entire region on edge. Tensions are so high that preparations for riots, if Wilson walks free, are discussed in sober terms in local and national media and on street corners. The editors of these powerful publications have shown a lapse in judgment and ethics that is not only shameful, but actually dangerous. We declare a mistrial in the court of public opinion, and once again call for Darren Wilson to be charged with the second-degree murder of Michael Brown Jr. and provided with the most fair and open trial our laws allow.

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

(7) comments


To ClearAndPresentDanger:

It may be premature to talk about this specific Grand jury's refusal to indict," but it certainly is not too premature to "indict this entire process," for being one that has been sorely lacking in transparency.

No one, has expressed this more eloquently than the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial writer, Bill Mclellan, and such a blatant and prolonged lack of transparency justifies the peoples concern for truth and equity of the process and in particular, all that has been presented as "evidence."



To ogel:

The Grand Jury is not finished yet, so it is premature to talk about 'refusing to indict'.

Riots would have (have) happened no matter what information is released. I am not under the impression that the rioters are particularly interested in the truth.


To ClearAndPresentDanger:

If the authorities had available to them, this kind of true and indisputable information available to them, that could have served to explain at least to some extent, their reasons for refusing to indict Officer Darren Wilson, why, would they subject hundreds of innocent people, to include children, as well as hundreds of police officers from St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and the Highway Patrol, to days of life threatening riots?

Why subject the poor business owners to endure such wrath, and allow schools to remain cancelled for days when a release of this information, if "true and indisputable," could have served to help quell the public's anger and unrest?

I have always believed truth to be a powerful weapon or force, not so fragile that one has to hide it to protect it, as if its mere revelation will cause it to dissipate or go up in smoke.


In any event, the Ferguson folks have been clamoring for more information, a more transparent process. The information recently released certainly goes to making the process more transparent.

The fact that the information, the autopsy in particular, is not pleasing to the Ferguson citizens cannot be helped.


I realise that you are probably not an attorney, but you mischaracterise the obligations of the parties in re: discovery.

While the prosecution is required to disclose essentially their entire case to the defense, the defense is under no such requirement.

The only obligations the defense is under are generally 1) disclosure of witnesses, and 2) disclosure of alibi defense

In the Ferguson situation at hand, it is premature to even be discussing discovery; all you have done is created a red herring. Bear in mind that any revelation of GJ info is coming from those linked to the prosecution side, and may well have come from the Feds.


This article is drivel. I think the leak is actually a responsible move by the press, and it serves the community. Angry protesters, basically without cause at this point and prejudiced against law enforcement, are threatening violence and property destruction. Law enforcement has been very lenient with these folks. The truth is that now it looks like "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" is a bunch of BS. I am very surprised there were protests after the video showed the young man strong arming the convenient store clerk. That spoke volumes to me about who we choose to be our martyrs and victims. This was all fabricated and packaged to incite riots and make people think they have a valid complaint. A certain amount of these protesters were going to be there anyway with or without the moral high ground. It is tragic that a young man died, and I wish he would have kept his nose clean so he could be here with us today. It sure doesn't look like the officer acted out of racism, but rather self protection.


this is not what democracy is suppose to look like!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.