You are here
Poor Handling of a Conflict of Interest in Ferguson, MO
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Partial withdrawal from participation is not a sufficient cure for
an apparent conflict of interest. When there is any involvement, it
can be seen as providing preferential treatment, as being unfair.
Once again this is made clear, in the most controversial local
government problem of the year: a white police officer's
killing of a black man in Ferguson, MO.
According to an article in Newsweek, the elected St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, is seen as especially sympathetic to the police. "His father was a St. Louis policeman killed in the line of duty by a black man when McCulloch was 12. His brother, nephew and cousin all served with the St. Louis police. His mother worked as a clerk for the force for 20 years. McCulloch would have joined the force too, but he lost a leg in high school due to cancer. 'I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,' he once said." He also spoke out (almost alone) in favor of a continuing role for the local police in the demonstrations that followed the killing.
According to Jeffrey Toobin's piece this week in The New Yorker, the local prosecutor did not turn the case over to a prosecutor from outside the county, as he should have. He acted as if he was taking the case out of his own hands by choosing not to charge the police officer and not to make a recommendation to the grand jury, both the opposite of the ordinary case.
He also turned over all the evidence to the grand jury. This seems fair, but this is not what is usually done. "If McCulloch’s lawyers had simply pared down the evidence to that which incriminated Wilson, they would have easily obtained an indictment," Toobin wrote. Instead, McCulloch handled the case differently from other cases, for the benefit of the police officer, for whom he was seen as being sympathetic. There is no reason anyone would see this as anything other than preferential treatment.
Then, after the grand jury chose not to indict, McCulloch got involved further by holding a press conference at which, according to Toobin, he "laid out the evidence that he believed supported the grand jury’s finding. In making the case for [the police officer's] innocence, McCulloch cherry-picked the most exculpatory information from what was assembled before the grand jury." In other words, he did the exact opposite of what he had done with the grand jury, and once again for the benefit of the police officer.
To have only partially withdrawn from participation, and to have shown this level of preferential treatment in such a controversial case is inexcusable. The next time McCulloch brings charges against a black citizen instead of leaving it up to a grand jury, he should be asked to drop the charges in order to be consistent with his handling of the Wilson case. And the next time, as well. By doing what he did, it is impossible to go back to the usual prosecutorial process without everyone seeing it as continuing unfairness.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in Newsweek, the elected St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, is seen as especially sympathetic to the police. "His father was a St. Louis policeman killed in the line of duty by a black man when McCulloch was 12. His brother, nephew and cousin all served with the St. Louis police. His mother worked as a clerk for the force for 20 years. McCulloch would have joined the force too, but he lost a leg in high school due to cancer. 'I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,' he once said." He also spoke out (almost alone) in favor of a continuing role for the local police in the demonstrations that followed the killing.
According to Jeffrey Toobin's piece this week in The New Yorker, the local prosecutor did not turn the case over to a prosecutor from outside the county, as he should have. He acted as if he was taking the case out of his own hands by choosing not to charge the police officer and not to make a recommendation to the grand jury, both the opposite of the ordinary case.
He also turned over all the evidence to the grand jury. This seems fair, but this is not what is usually done. "If McCulloch’s lawyers had simply pared down the evidence to that which incriminated Wilson, they would have easily obtained an indictment," Toobin wrote. Instead, McCulloch handled the case differently from other cases, for the benefit of the police officer, for whom he was seen as being sympathetic. There is no reason anyone would see this as anything other than preferential treatment.
Then, after the grand jury chose not to indict, McCulloch got involved further by holding a press conference at which, according to Toobin, he "laid out the evidence that he believed supported the grand jury’s finding. In making the case for [the police officer's] innocence, McCulloch cherry-picked the most exculpatory information from what was assembled before the grand jury." In other words, he did the exact opposite of what he had done with the grand jury, and once again for the benefit of the police officer.
To have only partially withdrawn from participation, and to have shown this level of preferential treatment in such a controversial case is inexcusable. The next time McCulloch brings charges against a black citizen instead of leaving it up to a grand jury, he should be asked to drop the charges in order to be consistent with his handling of the Wilson case. And the next time, as well. By doing what he did, it is impossible to go back to the usual prosecutorial process without everyone seeing it as continuing unfairness.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
