By Andrew C. McCarthy
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
A number of commentators have argued tonight, with no
challenge by their media interviewers, that even if the evidence was
insufficient to indict Officer Darren Wilson, justice would have been better
served if the grand jury had indicted anyway. That way, the reasoning goes, we
could have had a public trial in the light of day where everyone could have
seen that the case was insufficient. That, we are to believe, would have made
it easier for the community to accept the result.
The interests of the community, however, are not the only
ones in the equation, much less the most important ones. What about the
interests of the suspect? Those are the interests the Constitution addresses.
The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury.”
The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a
rubber stamp. It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the
government prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are
presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and expense of a
trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have committed a serious
offense.
And put aside the constitutional argument. Rabble-rousers
want Wilson indicted, despite the lack of probable-cause evidence, on the
theory that it would be more just to have a public trial in a case where a man
has lost his life. But why would it not be equally justifiable to argue that,
because a man has lost his life, the ultimate trial jury should also ignore the
law and convict, despite an even more stark lack of murder evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt? At what point do we stop enabling the grievance industry to
override our core constitutional protections?
If we are going to uphold our Constitution, it does not
matter that thoughtful commentators suppose a public trial would best serve the
community. The Fifth Amendment holds that a person has the right not to be
subjected to a public trial – i.e., the right not to be indicted — unless the
state can prove to a grand jury that there is probable cause to believe he
committed a crime.
Officer Wilson had a constitutional right not to be
indicted in the absence of sufficient evidence. That right to individual
liberty outweighs the media’s abstract claim that a public trial would serve
the public interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment