Even the prosecutor in the Michael Brown case said that Officer Darren Wilson’s testimony needed to be evaluated with particular skepticism because of Wilson’s natural motive to exonerate himself, but it’s still interesting to read his version of what went down, which you can do here:

Darren Wilson’s Grand Jury Testimony

2 thoughts on “TESTIMONY

  1. Skepticism? Really?! Two things you learn when you try cases:

    (1) Everybody’s testimony “need[s] to be evaluated with a certain amount of skepticism” and
    (2) If you didn’t listen to every minute of the trial (or grand jury hearing), then you can’t criticize the outcome.

    • The prosecutor, in his statement, made a point of noting that a grand jury often weighs the testimony of its target more skeptically than other testimony, for the obvious reason that the target doesn’t want to get indicted and thus has a strong motive to tailor his or testimony accordingly. Seems like a fair distinction to me, one that doesn’t preclude a general skepticism towards all testimony.

      I expressed this badly in my post, however, which I have now amended.

Comments are closed.