Poor Handling of a Conflict of Interest in Ferguson, MO
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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-hi…; target="”_blank”">an
article in <i>Newsweek</a>,</i>
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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/use-grand-jury" target="”_blank”">Jeffrey
Toobin's piece this week in <i>The
New Yorker</a>,</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---