A NYT editorial tonight says Robert McCulloch should should step aside in the Michael Brown case. Among the reasons:
When he was a boy, "his father [a police officer] was killed on the job...by a black suspect while helping another officer. ...
"The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that after a shooting in 2000, when two detectives shot two unarmed black men in the town next to Ferguson, Mr. McCulloch failed to bring any independent evidence to the grand jury. He claimed that 'every witness' testified that the detectives were defending themselves, but secret grand jury tapes showed that several witnesses did not do so...."
This is not as clear as we might expect. Was there "independent evidence" not brought to the grand jury? That would be quite damning if true. Why was the evidence the grand jury heard not independent? Perhaps we need transcripts.
(Unfortunately, McCulloch foolishly called on the governor to "man up" and decide. Why do I question the objectivity of a prosecutor who calls on others to "man up?" What would he say if the governor were a woman?)
Anyway, the paper is not saying McCulloch must step aside -- I doubt a judge would remove him -- but that he should do so voluntarily or if he does not, that the governor should replace him. He may not be required to step aside but neither is he required to stay in.
There's much to be said for stepping aside in the face of widespread public distrust, espeically in this case, but there's something to be said for staying and not creating a precedent. After all, he is elected and poltically accountable to the entire population of the county. A special prosecutor may have no political accountability at all.
Recent Comments