The Corner

In Ferguson, Evidence Is the Enemy

One of the strangest arguments to come out of the Ferguson legal wrangling: The prosecutor presented a case that was insufficiently biased.

That is exactly what Brown family attorney Daryl Parks said yesterday, complaining on Fox News that the prosecutor presented the grand jury with both “evidence to indict” and also “possible defenses or actions or justifications.” Just to be clear, he explained that his objection was to giving the grand jury “all the evidence,” because, in doing so, “it’s not as if he’s putting in a posture to get an indictment.”

Of course it is the case that prosecutors very often bias their grand jury presentations against defendants, e.g., those Travis County, Texas, knuckleheads who engaged in political jihads against Tom DeLay and Rick Perry. But grand juries are not rubber stamps for the prosecution; it is their job to determine whether a prosecution is warranted. Missouri law gives grand juries relatively wide license in investigating the issues set before them, and it should go without saying that they deserve to look at all the evidence. To complain that legal institutions are insufficiently hostile, and to maintain that they are doing wrong by making all the evidence available, is to misunderstand what the law is there to do. 

I am not much of a legal analyst, but if your argument comes down to a complaint that grand jurors were given “all the evidence,” that’s pretty weak tea. 

Most Popular


Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More