The transcripts of the Grand Jury testimonies about the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

  • Good morn1ng. It lS Friday, November 21st, it is 9:24 a.m. This is Kathi Alizadeh, Sheila Whirley is present, all 12 grand jurors are present, as 1s the court reporter.

    And we've spent about an hour kind of talking about some procedural issues and matters and concerns that the grand jurors had.

    We did not discuss any of the evidence or testimony so that discussion was had not on the record.

    I do want to tell you that as, s1nce you last met, which was on Thursday, last week, I've taken this week to go through every transcript that has been produced, which we are up-to-date. We have the transcript from last Thursday and what I've done is I made a chart and I made a chart that had the name of every witness who testified and whether or not that witness made statements prior to their testimony.

    As you know, it was originally our plan that we would put on witness statements prior to the witness testifying. We play statements, we provide transcripts when we had them, but over the weeks because of scheduling issues and problems getting witnesses in, we kind of got away from that. We'll put the witness on now and we'll listen to their statements later.

    I wanted to make sure that I had put everything on and, of course, I discovered that I'm not perfect and we have not, so I want to make this representation to y'all.

    And, aga1n, names of witnesses will be redacted from the transcripts, so I'm just going to go ahead and say their names. But if you will recall, there was a witness testified, her name 1s

    She is the and she did testify and I did play a statement of hers that was taken on the date of the shooting by the St. Louis County Police Department and that statement was three minutes long.

    Apparently there is another statement of hers that was given to the FBI on September 2nd and that statement is 11 minutes and 58 seconds. I did not play that, but I have it hear, all right.

    So I'm going to go through each of these and then we will discuss whether or not you want us to play or give you just the transcripts of what have you.

    There was another witness or another young man who did not testify, but you'll recall

    he originally made a statement to St. Louis County Police on the day of the shooting. It was a ten-minute recorded statement that we played for you where he described having witnessed the incident.

    testified last week about a phone call and we played a phone call for you from that witness where he said, no, he really didn't see it, he just said he saw it. So there is another statement of that was given to the joint investigators, so United States attorney, Justice Department attorney and FBI people, that was given on September 26th. It's 15 minutes and 58 seconds long, and I did not play that one for you. I have listened to it and actually that's how I knew

    was recanting the story. The essence of that statement he says, I didn't really see it.

    But that statement is also, I have it in here. So we can play that for you if you want to hear that one.

    There was a woman testified named , she's the one who, I believe, was taking her trash out when she heard the shots. She made two statements, one on August 9th on the date of the shooting and one on August 16th to the FBI. During their canvas, remember the week after they did a knock on door canvas?

    I have given you those two transcripts already, and at the time you all said you didn't need to hear the statement, the statement played because you have the transcripts.

    But again, I have those statements here and if you desire to hear them, we can play them.

    Then there's , you will remember she's the woman from who was taking a drive into Canfield Apartment Complex and testified that she witnessed the shooting. I've already played for you a statement that she made to the joint investigators, the U.S. attorney, Department of Justice attorney and FBI agents. That statement was on October 22nd. It was an hour and 38 minutes long and there was no transcript of the statement at that time, but the court reporter took down the statement as we played it, and so you've heard that statement.

    There is another statement that was made previously by her on September 11th to the St. Louis County Police Department, that statement is 44 minutes and 52 seconds long. I don't have a transcript of that statement, but I have that audio if you want to hear that as well.

    There was witness if you recall, he was kind of like, he said he was kind of like the godson to He was on his balcony trying to make a cell phone call because he gets better reception out on his balcony.

    He made a statement that I played for you on September 30th. It was a statement made to joint investigators. It was 33 minutes and 14 seconds long. And you've already heard that one and have a transcript of that.

    He also made a statement on the day of the FBI's canvas on August 16th and that statement is 22 minutes and 31 seconds. And I have that statement, but I have not played it for you, nor do I have a transcript.

    I don't know if you recall , she's the witness who says she likes her gospel mus1c and she was rocking to the gospel mus1c 1n her car when she pulled into the complex that day and witnessed the shooting from behind, from inside her vehicle.

    She made a statement to joint investigators that statement was made on August 15th, 2014.

    At the time I asked you if you wanted to hear y'all told me you didn't think you wanted to, but I have the transcripts already prepared at that time because I was thinking we would play it. So at this time I'll pass out the transcripts for her statement and y'all can have those and if you want to hear her statement, we can play that one as well.

    Then there was , he's the gentleman who was making internet kind of video phone call to a female friend and he unwittingly recorded the sounds of gunshots, and I didn't play his statement. His statement was given to the FBI on August 18th, it is ten minutes and 41 seconds long. I don't have a transcript, but I do have that statement if you want to listen to it.

    There 1s , he's the witness who had called into that POD cast show, that

    and had made statements that seem to indicate that he had seen the shooting. And he came in and testified to you about what he saw.

    He made a statement to St. Louis County Police and the FBI actually on the day that he testified in the grand jury because he would not make a statement to the police he actually was subpoenaed to come into grand jury to testify.

    So when he arrived at our office, FBI agent and then sat down with him and took his statement and that's recorded. I don't have a transcript, but I do have the statement, that statement is 53 minutes and three seconds, so if you want to hear that one you can.

    , she was the physician assistant who treated Officer Wilson on the day of the shooting.

    She made a statement to joint investigators on August 27th of 2014. Her statement was recorded and is 16 minutes and 29 seconds long. I don't have a transcript, but I have a statement if you want to hear that.

    made a statement to joint investigators on the 9th before he testified 1n this grand jury. So that would have been on November 12th and his statement is two hours and 40 minutes long if you would like to hear that. Actually, I do have a transcript, they delivered the transcript to me as well. So I have a transcript and that statement.

    I didn't print out the transcript because obviously it is quite voluminous. If you need it, I will certainly print out cop1es for everyone.

    And then finally , she was the woman who was in the vehicle with her mom and dad and sister and her daughter, she made two statements. Neither of which have been played to you. One was on August 21st to the St. Louis County Police, that's 19 minutes and 15 seconds long. And the other one was to joint investigators and that was made, I think, the day before she came in and testified here, that would be November 12th. And that statement is 35 minutes and 45 seconds long.

    And maybe at a morn1ng break, I'm go1ng to g1ve this chart to the foreperson. I've highlighted the ones missing statements so you guys can talk amongst yourselves if there 1s any need to hear those statements or get transcripts for those statements, we can do that before you deliberate.

    GRAND JUROR: Whatever happened to the witness somebody who didn't want to come?

  • we never were able to get him subpoenaed. He's hung up on me twice, he hung up on the Department of Justice attorney twice, they've not been able to get him 1n for an interview.

    I've had an investigator to his home, to his mother's home, and either people don't answer the door or when they answer the door they say isn't here.

    Police are not authorized to go into a house and look for somebody unless they have a search warrant. And given that he's not, he hasn't committed a crime, we really can't get a search warrant to go into a house to find him.

    So, you know, I did play his statement for you to take into consideration the fact that he 1s unwilling to come in and give live testimony to you.

    When you consider how many witnesses have g1ven different statements after they come in and testify, just keep that in mind, that you were able to question him and observe him and judge his credibility live, okay.

    GRAND JUROR: I have one more question. What would be the reason that a police department or the FBI or the civil rights will get a statement at the 9th hour before the witness comes in to testify?

  • Well, that would be a question that you would have to ask them. You know, as you know, they're running their own investigation, independent investigation and as you probably, you might be able to tell even by looking, I didn't g1ve you the whole list. I left out a page.

  • lot of these witnesses who were spoken to were spoken to by either county police officers on the day of the shooting or the day after the shooting and then sometimes on that following weekend when the FBI did their canvas they were spoken to. Some of these interviews are as short as three minutes. As an example, I'll use She was interviewed by a county detective on the date of the shooting. I think her interview was something like three minutes. Not very detailed. Not very, you know, there isn't even anything in her statement at that time as to what car she was driving. As you know, that kind of became an 1ssue. She testified she had the and that kind of is an 1ssue. I'm only speculating as to the reason that they were conducting their own interviews. I think that definitely witnesses needed more 1n depth interviews and they determined they were going to do those, but I can't really tell you, it would be speculating on my part if they had any other kind of motive or desire, but they are running their own investigation. They will, they are prepar1ng a report with recommendations of their own so they feel a need to actually talk to every witness themselves. Okay. Also we did not have it at the time, but actually emailed a copy of his CV after he testified, so I marked that as Exhibit 103.

  • (Deposition Exhibit Number 103 marked for identification.)

  • And at this time we'll proceed with who I anticipate may be the last witness and that's who started last Thursday.

    GRAND JUROR: I have one quick question. referenced his report, do we not anticipate getting one from his autopsy?

  • We don't have one currently.

  • I don't even know if it's done.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • You know, honestly, during the break we can try to contact him if it 1s done, he maybe can email it to us, and if it 1s not done.

    GRAND JUROR: I asked about report. He mentioned finishing up his report and we never saw anything. If that 1s of interest of people to inquire into it or not?

    GRAND JUROR: What do you mean he didn't saw everything?

    GRAND JUROR: He never submitted his report from his autopsy. He referenced he looked at some pictures when.

    GRAND JUROR: He should have written his report by now.

    GRAND JUROR: This lS it, he didn't submit his autopsy report.

  • We'll contact and see.

  • It is worth us reaching out if he's got it and can email to us we'll get it. If he doesn't, you know, the only thing would be y'all would have to discuss if you want to hold up your deliberations until you get it. This is, aga1n, your investigation and if there 1s something you think you need, we're going to get it for you.

  • Another question? GRAND JUROR: We need to decide even if we need to ask for it.

    GRAND JUROR: I thought the only reason that we would have it is because he was, he had a difference of opinion as to one of the wounds as opposed to the medical examiner for St. Louis County, 1s that my understanding? Was that my understanding?

  • That's something you need to figure out.

  • We can't -(cid:173) GRAND JUROR: I'm sorry?

  • I can reach out to him.

  • We can make quick inquiry. If he's got it, we'll get. If he doesn't have it, you guys are going to have to decide if you want to hold up deliberations until you get it. It 1s easy.

    GRAND JUROR: I'm not sure that everything that we've done so far 1s thorough if we would make a decision before we have his report that that would not reflect good on us, you know what I mean?

  • Let me tell you this. In any actual criminal trial, the report of the medical examiner, the police reports, any reports that you all have been g1ven 1n your investigation, none of those or admissible 1n a trial because the report itself is considered hearsay.

    The testimony is the evidence in the case. So has now, typically we have a report before the witness testifies and we may use that report to prepare us for their testimony, and then we may use that report if they testify differently than what the report says certainly, but in this case, we didn't have that report in advance.

    If we had it and it was a trial, we couldn't let the jury see it anyway, but that's something, again, you guys are go1ng to have to talk about. During this break, we'll go and do, we'll contact somebody right now. If we get it great, if we don't get it, you are going to have to decide if you want to wait for the report, okay. And that will be the decision you all can make amongst yourselves during the break or lunch or what have you. Okay.

    Anything else before we take a bathroom break or stretch your legs?

    (Recess)

  • This is Sheila Whirley. There was a request regarding autopsy report. Fortunately I was able to reach him by telephone during our break. He said that he was waiting on some information and hadn't completed the report, but he could have it ready by Monday.

    So he wanted me to get back to him and he'll work on it over the weekend. He wanted me to get back to him and let him know if that would be okay, should he work on it or what.

  • Why don't you guys talk about it during your lunch break. We'll let him know after lunch whether he needs to chop-chop, get that done for you guys, okay.

    So at this time, we're go1ng to recall Detective

    DETECTIVE having previously been sworn, retakes the stand for further questioning.

    EXAMINATION BY

  • Good morn1ng, Detective

  • Good morn1ng.

  • This will be your third time appear1ng on this matter in the grand Jury and I will just remind you, you are still under oath to tell the truth and also that you are under oath not to divulge or disclose anything that happens in the grand Jury or to even discuss that you were appearing at the grand Jury or any matters or for the fact that they have this matter under consideration.

  • So, I first want to clear something up, and this actually came about at the conclusion of your day on Thursday, and we were not done with your testimony, but there was a question asked by Sheila Whirley and I wanted to clarify something.

    Last Thursday I had asked you questions about your investigation, about your questioning of Officer Wilson, your reasons for not placing him under arrest after you had interviewed him, the reason you did not place him under arrest sometime subsequent to that and I asked you if you felt that you had probable cause after you had interviewed him, if you felt that at that time that you had probable cause to arrest him, and your answer I believe was no.

    At that time you did not feel that you did and I want to clarify for the grand JUrors and Sheila brought up the fact, you are not say1ng, are you, Detective, that you do not feel that there's probable cause to indict Officer Wilson of any offense in this case?

  • Correct, I'm not g1v1ng that op1n1on.

  • In fact, in preparation for your testimony, did we discuss whether or not any questions about your op1n1on would be answered by you?

  • We did discuss that, yes.

  • And I told you that I would not want you to g1ve your own op1n1on if you have one, nor would I want any of the grand jurors to ask you your opinion because that is actually their decision and not yours?

  • That's correct, yes.

  • So just to clarify for everybody, your answer about not arresting Officer Wilson after he was interviewed, which was less than 24 hours after the actual shooting incident was not a comment on your part as to whether you feel that there's probable cause to indict, is that fair to say?

  • That's fair to say.

  • And you all understand that at no time do I think would it be appropriate for you to ask his op1n1on as to whether there is probable cause to indict.

    Also, you may recall that during testimony of certain witnesses they may have been asked questions about their opinion as to whether there was excess1ve force used and in those cases, those witnesses, if you recall, were all actual eyewitnesses to the incident. And so whether they have an opinion or not I think might be relevant, but given that Detective is not witness to the incident, I don't feel it is appropriate for you to ask him his opinion as to any of the issues in this case.

    He's here to testify about the investigation and the facts that he's discovered and I leave it to you to determine the issues of law 1n this case.

    Also, Detective after your testimony you indicated to me that I had asked you a question about whether or not the investigation you conducted in this case was any different than any other investigation you've done regarding use of force investigations, and I believe you testified Thursday that no, you have not done anything differently or something to that effect. And you told me that you wanted to clarify that; is that fair?

  • Why don't you explain for the grand jurors about what, if anything, is different about your investigation in this case?

  • Sure. When I answered that question last week, I was referring to the fact that Darren Wilson was treated no differently in this investigation than other officers have been treated in any other investigation we have conducted or that I have conducted.

    He received no special treatment and 1n terms of the investigation, the same legal and general procedural guidelines were followed in this investigation as they were in any other officer involved incident that I have conducted.

    Having said that from the beginning, there were certain aspects of the investigation that were different. Typically we would do a walk-through at the scene with the individual involved in the incident, that wasn't possible 1n this particular instance based off of circumstances taking place at the scene. It wouldn't have been safe, I felt, for him to go back to the scene and do a walk-through at the scene. In a relatively short period of time, there was a significant amount of media attention that had been garnered regarding this incident and obviously, that can impact witnesses' statements if a witness sees media account of it, so that would have obviously impacted this investigation more so than previous investigations. The FBI and Department of Justice, obviously, began conducting a parallel investigation within a relatively short period of time. And that obviously lent itself to a variety of coordination issues that needed to happen, a variety of other laboratory reports that we would have needed to get, other methods of doing things. In that sense, there were things that we did differently.

    And also just in terms of the sheer volume of work and the amount of witnesses that we contacted that was different in this particular instance, based on the amount of people that needed to be contacted, the amount of evidence that was presented. And so in some instances, I was at the same time as much a project manager as I was an investigator.

    But ultimately there were a lot of things that were, I should say, different about this investigation, but it is nothing that would have impacted the integrity of the investigation or the manner 1n which Darren Wilson was treated, so I just wanted to clarify that.

  • All right. And 1n the course of this investigation within hours of the shooting, you did have a number of people who actually came forward and indicated that they had witnessed the incident; 1s that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And you learned shortly after the shooting that there was an individual who was with Mike Brown during the shooting and did it take several days for you to identify him and to contact him?

  • And then during this investigation were there also a number of witnesses that did not come forward that you were able to later identify either through canvass1ng or through other investigative techniques such as getting phone records, Facebook records, Twitter records and so forth, to try to locate people who might have seen something?

  • Yes, that's correct.

  • And so is that something that was atypical 1n your investigation of an officer involved shooting the vast number of witnesses that actually were not coming forward on their own?

  • It was, yes.

  • Urn, all right.

  • I'm go1ng to then kind of resume with talking about this perspective picture. At this time does anybody have any questions, of course, you can always ask later as well. Before I move on to doing these pictures again, anybody have questions about the investigation itself or things that were done or not done?

    Okay, all right. So now, Detective we had you testify Thursday about this map, which is marked Grand Jury Exhibit Number 101. What are these?

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Extra, okay, that's right. And you indicated that you, along with other investigators prepared this, which is your interpretation based upon the statements made of witnesses as to where various eyewitnesses were during, when I say shooting, obviously, there was a time period that goes along, the beginning of the time of the beginning of the incident until after the shooting had been done. And do you still feel that this map accurately reflects where witnesses said they were?

  • And just for your instruction, this just, this map is for your purposes in your deliberations and if you disagree with anything that's on the map, these little sticky things come right off. So supposedly they come right off.

  • If you feel that this witness is not in the right place, you can move any of these stickers that you want and put them in the places where you think they belong.

    This 1s just something that is representative of what this witness believes where people were. If you all do with this what you will.

    Also there was a legend that was provided for all of you regarding the numbers because the numbers that were assigned witnesses are not the same numbers as the witnesses testimony in this grand Jury.

    So Witness Number 10 in the grand Jury 1s not necessarily Number 10 on this chart. Actually, he's Number 6. So those numbers for the map are only for the map, okay. Is that fair to everybody?

    All right. Now GRAND JUROR: I just want to clarify, the red where it says Michael Brown, that is where he died, that is where he fell?

  • Yes, ma'am.

    GRAND JUROR: You don't indicate anywhere where he was to begin with, just where he fell?

  • Just where he fell, yes.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) And the blue would be where the police officer's car was when you began your investigation, correct?

  • So these photographs, which we already started some testimony about, I did a little better job attaching them. And just so for the grand jury to understand what I've done here, I have three boards and each board represents a vantage point. So the actual vantage point, the picture of that vantage point is on the back of the board.

    So as you see here on the back of this board, there 1s a cone in the middle of the street. That would be where the police vehicle was. And so when you then look at the pictures that are on front of the board, and you've heard Detective

    testify about how the photographer stood 1n that location over that cone, actually stood, straddled the cone and would take pictures moving clockwise 360, so that we would have an idea of what can be seen from that vantage point to help you figure out where people were, what they might have seen, parts of it they might have seen.

    And actually, when I prepared these boards, I did it us1ng what's called removable tape because I wanted y'all to be able to take these pictures off if you needed to or move them around if you needed to. But unfortunately, removable tape doesn't stay very well and the next day I came 1n and these pictures were like all on the floor.

    As you see they're coming off somewhat and so I've provided a tape dispenser for you. If you see that, see how this is coming off here. This is because this tape doesn't stick well.

    I'm taking these down so they stay. You should be able to pull them off. If there is a need to remove them and move them around 1n any way.

    But I believe we finished up with this board which I did not mark last week, but I'm going to mark now.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 104 marked for identification.)

  • Does anybody have, before anybody I move onto the next board, we kind of finished with the last picture. Anybody have any other questions about this board?

    And just so you all know too, you will see that there are, I think, five easels in this room right now. There 1s one 1n the corner that's holding that flip chart, one that's in this corner. The one I just put up there, there's another one in the corner and one over here.

    So when it 1s time for you to deliberate, if you feel like you want to get all of these out and put them up, it is just hard for me to move around by doing it right now.

    I'm just go1ng to do them one at a time.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 105 marked for identification.)

  • Next board I'm going to mark Grand Jury Exhibit 105.

    Again, I put the picture on the back of the board that shows the vantage point of these pictures. You see a cone in that picture, and Detective looking at the photos on the front of the board. Can you tell what vantage point that is?

  • This would be the far eastern point that we took, the 360 degree photos from.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) And why 1s it that this cone was placed at that location on Canfield Drive or Canfield Road?

  • As best we could tell based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to. So that intersection of roughly Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive.

  • If you want to point to where that 1s on your other map?

  • So essentially the western corner, or what would be the northwestern corner, I should say, of Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive is where this cone was placed roughly right about there.

    (indicating)

  • And so we see 1n the photograph that is on the back of this board, the cone there, did the photographer straddle that cone and take 360 photographs in the same manner that she did from the vantage point from where the police vehicle had been?

  • Same procedure was used, yes.

  • Okay.

    GRAND JUROR: Is this from the perspective, you said from the farthest point that the Michael Brown got to, is this the point where he stopped in the roadway and turned?

  • Yes, ma'am. We are basing that off of witness statements as best we could tell. That was the point that they had made reference to and so we used that as the furthest eastern point to go to.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Now, I'm go1ng to put this up, Detective. If you want to come up here if it is easier for you to see. We're go1ng to start with the top left-hand photo is the first photo 1n the group and then we're going to move left to right, and then down to the second row left to right and then down to the third row left to right.

    So the first photograph, can you describe for the grand jurors where the photograph, what the photographer is seeing in that image?

  • This photograph right here would be, aga1n, if I move to this map at the intersection of Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive, the photographer would have been taking a photo that would have been essentially almost due east. So taking a photograph due east.

  • And so 1n that photograph, can you see Building Number

  • There would be Building Number and a portion of Building Number

  • Can you put the laser pointer on Building Number

  • This would be Building Number right here. And then if we move to our left that would be Building Number

  • Now, from this perspective, the location of the would, if they were, according to their statements, can you see where they would have been?

  • They discussed being near, essentially this area right here, the corner of this building somewhere in this area right here. (indicating)

  • And there's a dumpster that you can see 1n that photograph; is that right?

  • Okay. And then also there was a witness 1n Building Number

  • That's correct.

  • And who was that? A

  • We can see Building Number from this first photograph?

  • And then there were also possibly two witnesses that were near this dumpster?

  • That's correct.

  • And that would be?

  • All right. Is that the dumpster that appears in the top left-hand side of that first photograph?

  • Okay. Now, mov1ng onto, well, let me ask you this. Building which would have been where

    and would have been, can you see Building 1n this, 1n that first photograph?

  • Yes, it looks like you can see a portion of Building over here.

  • Okay. So depending on the angle of that photograph and where they would have been, it's possible that someone from Building could see where the photographer was standing?

  • And then the next photo, 1s this mov1ng clockwise or counter clockwise?

  • This next photo would be counter clockwise.

  • Yeah, did I put these up wrong?

  • I think these two are transposed.

  • Good thing I used removable tape, huh. All right. Tell you what, let's take a pause as we try to get this right.

    (Recess)

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) So we've discovered that I have some photographs in the wrong order and we're going to move on to the next board so that I can during maybe a break we can rearrange those photographs and put them up the way they should be and we will revisit that after a break.

    So the next board is going to be marked Grand Jury Exhibit 106.

    (Grand Jury Exhibit Number 106 marked for identification.)

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Detective, looking at the photograph on the back of that board, can you tell me where the photographer is standing for these photographs?

  • This would be at the point where Michael Brown's body was located when we arrived at the scene.

  • All right. Before we start, can you look at that real quickly and tell me did I get that right or is that wrong too?

  • This lS what happens when you do live theater.

  • The top is clockwise. This one 1s clockwise. This 1s clockwise, we're good.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Is this supposed to be there?

  • That's correct.

  • All right, good. So looking at these photographs starting at the top left. And what direction is the photographer facing?

  • Primarily west.

  • And that would be on Canfield Drive?

  • That's correct.

  • And from that first photograph, 1s she straddling the cone that appears in the photograph on the back of the exhibit?

  • Okay. And so from this location, can you see the location where would have been?

  • And where 1s that?

  • It would be at this point right here.

  • And in the photograph you can see kind of the corner of a white house or structure?

  • That's correct.

  • Is that the house where he was?

  • That is the house where he was working.

    GRAND JUROR: I have a question about

    You mentioned, I guess, when we were here Thursday that you talked to the homeowner?

  • I talked to the individual who resides at that home and I also talked to the homeowner, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: And they said, what was their response to him being there?

  • Neither one could remember exact dates, but it was around that time they did both confirm that there was work being done on the home around that time and they both confirmed that there was an individual there. They didn't know names, there was an individual there that was doing some sort of drywall and painting work at the house.

    GRAND JUROR: I kind of find that a little strange because when he sat down with us, he told us that he specifically told whoever was at that house what had happened?

  • I asked her about that, and she said that she remembered talking to him briefly, didn't remember what they had talked about and that she ultimately left for work.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Let me ask you this, given that you actually have been to that residence, did you make any attempts for yourself to stand in the location where you believe stood and look down Canfield to see for yourself what someone in that position might be able to see?

  • And from where, from your observation, would a person standing at the location where

    said he was, could they see where the police vehicle was?

  • And could they see where the farthest easterly point where Michael Brown, witnesses say he may have stopped and turned around?

  • Yes, he could.

  • Could you also see the place where Michael Brown's body came to rest?

  • Are there any obstructions between where from your observation from that vantage point to any of those locations is there any obstructions that would be in your way?

  • The only obstruction would have been the trunk of this tree right here. I don't know if everyone can see that. There is a tree right there and the trunk of that tree would have been the only obstruction.

    GRAND JUROR: How big lS that trunk, how wide?

  • I don't know specifically, but clearly the only reason I mention that is in the interest of full disclosure, that's the only

    GRAND JUROR: According to your judgment, it 1s not a big, wide tree?

  • No, it 1s a grown

    GRAND JUROR: Full grown tree?

  • It 1s clearly a grown tree, but 1n the grand scheme of looking at a particular incident, one tree that is at a distance, I didn't view it as something that would have impeded my ability to see the entire incident.

    GRAND JUROR: Thank you, Slr.

  • Yes, ma'am.

    GRAND JUROR: From his distance where he was standing, could he actually see the movements, you can see a person standing, but could you actually physically see the movements of Michael Brown?

  • So just by chance when myself and another detective were at this home right here, there was quite a few people walking around 1n this general area and up to and including someone walking what would be roughly, aga1n, at the intersection of Coppercreek Court and Canfield Court. And you can clearly see that individual and I could clearly see that individual and I could see hands moving and I could see where they were moving their hands if walking like this, I would be able to see the movement of their hands, yes. (indicating)

    GRAND JUROR: Could see their facial expressions?

  • I don't remember.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • I don't remember.

    GRAND JUROR: All right.

  • Any other questions? GRAND JUROR: How soon after the incident were these photos taken?

  • I don't, I could check for you and get you an exact date.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • But I don't remember.

  • The dates the photos were taking, is that what was asked?

    GRAND JUROR: Right uh-huh.

  • I'm guessing that might be, you know what, it might be the date they were printed that's on the back, we'll find out.

    Do you have your report on your laptop?

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) He brought that so he could answer questions if there were questions like this.

  • So we were out there at roughly 8:30 a.m. and it would have been on Wednesday, October, yes October 1st.

    GRAND JUROR: The 1st?

  • The 1st of October, yes, ma'am.

    GRAND JUROR: Could I make another comment? Conceivably the abundance of foliage during that course of time from August until October when the photos were taken, so there may not have been as much foliage? I know you are not a botanist, I understand that.

  • That was a consideration that we took, we took that into consideration in doing those photos. We wanted to get it, obviously, before the leaves started to change. If you look 1n these photos here. The foliage is still green. I'm not saying that, obviously, there are leaves in these photos right here, but the foliage is clearly green at that point when photos were taken.

  • Any other questions? Okay.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) And then, Detective, also looking at this first image, if there were vehicles that were coming around this bend and proceeding eastbound on Canfield Drive, someone looking out of their front windshield would be able to see the police vehicle, correct?

  • As well as the place where Michael Brown's body rested?

  • I believe so.

  • And could they see the corner from their vehicle?

  • Okay. And so then in the second photograph, and this 1s turning clockwise, correct?

  • Moving clockwise, yes.

  • So what building is this 1n the map?

  • This building right here. (indicating)

  • Yes. Is that the same as this building right here? You see a white SUV 1n front of these buildings, this is same building, right?

  • So we're moving clockwise so this would be

  • Looking west?

  • Westbound, correct, you're asking about this building right here. (indicating)

  • This building is the same as this building?

  • That's correct.

  • What number would that be?

  • That would be Building

  • What witnesses were ln Building Number

  • And in Building would have been

  • Okay. And so if they were on the front of their building and looking toward the photographer, who is standing 1n this grouping, this is where Michael Brown's body was; is that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • They would be able to see Michael Brown's body 1n the street?

  • And this building right here on the second photograph?

  • Correct, that would be Building

  • Who is in that building?

  • In Building would have been and would have resided in the building. It would have been moving from that building towards the, between her building and the dumpster.

  • And then also somewhere in this area would have been where parked her car and walked over ln an easterly direction, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And lS 's apartment this one right here? (indicating)

  • It lS actually, would be on this side, so the western side of this stairwell right here, but this balcony right here is connected and there 1s obviously a balcony on this side that you cannot see that would be consistent with this one on the eastern end.

  • We talked about the fact that there is, there's a balcony that's connected on the fronts of these buildings, but there's a wall that will at some point block somebody's vision depending upon where they are on their balconies and what they are looking at, is that fair to say?

  • That's fair to say.

  • So depending on where somebody 1s on these balconies would depend on whether or not they could see something in the street?

  • Okay. And so in the third 1mage now, aga1n, mov1ng clockwise, you see 's apartment?

  • Okay. And then were there any other people 1n Building Number ?

  • Not in the building, no.

  • Okay. And then on the fourth photograph, aga1n, moving clockwise, we can see this memorial here that's by a light pole. Is this close to the area where witnesses said he had stopped and turned around?

  • And from this photographer's vantage point, aga1n, you can see that dumpster in the background?

  • That's correct.

  • And you can see 's building?

  • This Building Number , would this be this building back in the background?

  • That would be Building

  • Who was 1n Building ?

  • Okay. And then looking at the next photograph, again, mov1ng clockwise then, now we are looking down Canfield Road and east down Canfield; 1s that right?

  • That's correct.

  • And, again, you can see the place here, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And you can see 's building?

  • And what buildings are back here?

  • That would be buildings, 1n terms of where witnesses were located, Buildings and then closer to that you can see a portion of Building and it looks like possibly a portion of Building

  • And so what witnesses were 1n Building Number or near Building ?

  • Building would have been

  • All right. In Building , we didn't have anybody from Building that said they were near or 1n Building ; is that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And then the sixth photograph in the group, aga1n, turning clockwise. What building number is this in the left-hand side in the background here?

  • I believe that is a portion of Building and then 1n the front here would be Building

  • And then is this a different building right here?

  • Same, different address, same building.

  • So it lS and , which are both part of Building

  • Were there any witnesses 1n Building ?

  • Who is that?

  • He said he was in like the first floor, which is basically slightly below street level, correct?

  • Correct. As a frame of reference, I would say roughly about that high below street level.

  • So if he were on his patio right outside his front door street level would be about three a and a half, 4 feet?

  • And then clockwise, aga1n, looking at Photograph Number 7, I think?

  • We're looking at the same building, primarily Building there.

  • All right. And then Number , or the next photograph?

  • Sure. Now this photo essentially is facing south. And we can see, again, a portion of Building and unrelated building off in the distance where we didn't identify any witnesses and then in the far right-hand side of the photograph we can see building, a portion of Building

  • All right. Would this parking lot that we see here, I'm not sure on this, thinking from my vantage point, would that be where said that she parked her vehicle?

  • Okay. And she indicates that she was standing in front of Building smoking a cigarette with some unidentified man?

  • Identified as building, not building, Number on the map here.

  • Okay. And then 1s there another witness 1n Building Number ?

  • And who 1s that? A

  • So , and he said he was inside the building and looked out his window and he saw some or all of this incident, correct?

  • And so then in the next photograph, turning clockwise still, is that also Building Number ?

  • That's also Building , yes.

  • And then the final photograph you come full circle again, now west down Canfield Drive; 1s that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • Any questions about this group1ng or witnesses?

    GRAND JUROR: I didn't get the very first white van?

  • This one here?

    GRAND JUROR: Uh-huh.

  • This is Building which 1s right here.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay. GRAND JUROR: Where was apartment here in Building

  • His apartment would have been, it 1s hard to see.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • So the second, yeah.

  • Any other questions about this group of photographs?

    And, of course, you can always ask later. At this time let's take a quick break while the detective and I redo the photographs and put them 1n the correct order and then we'll finish with that board and then we'll probably just go on to your questions about the investigation.

    (Recess)

  • This lS Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley is present, we took a short break while the detective and I rearranged the photos in the top row. The rest of them, apparently, were right, but I had gotten the top row wrong. So let's start over with this board, which is 105. And again, based on the photograph that's on the back of the board, you can tell what perspective these photographs were from which is from where, Detective?

  • Again, this is from the eastern most point that witnesses had identified Michael Brown's traveling on Canfield Drive. So, aga1n, we are talking about the intersection of Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive and the northwest, northern portion of the intersection right there.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Okay. So the first photograph, again, all of these photographs are the photographer standing or straddling the cone that was placed there, and these cones that you placed for the photographer's benefit, were these based on measurements that you did that day?

  • They were based on measurements that were taken on August 9th and then measurements, again, that we did on the day that these photographs were taken, yes.

  • And so you are talking about the measurements that were taken by Detective on the day that he documented the crime scene?

  • Okay. And so you used those measurements and then measured for yourself to determine exactly where the police car was, and exactly where the body was, and of course, the exact location of where Michael Brown stopped and turned around is just based upon various witness accounts; is that right?

  • That's correct.

  • And so for these photographs, this is the best of your information that this would have been the farthest east that he went before turning around?

  • The best information we had at that time, yes.

  • Okay. Is there any change 1n that? You said at that time?

  • Okay, all right. So in the first photograph, again, we're looking down Canfield Drive, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And the, in the background somewhat, maybe midrange 1n that photograph, you see the memorial where there is another cone and there's flowers and candles and stuffed animals, is that the location where Michael Brown's body was?

  • That cone has nothing to do with the cone that we placed. That cone was there when we arrived and that cone was left there, obviously, when we left. We brought our own cone. I would discount the meaning of that cone.

  • Okay. But that general location, so someone who was standing where the photographer 1s, you can get a feel of how far away Michael Brown's body came to rest in this first photograph, correct?

  • Okay. And then the second photograph 1s mov1ng clockwise?

  • And what building 1s that that we see?

  • Building right here. (indicating)

  • And I think we talked about it, but let's recap, looking at the first photograph there, can you see the corner of that white house where

    says he was?

  • It is right there. (indicating)

  • Now looking at the second photograph you said you see what building number is that?

  • And the second photograph that's Building

  • And that would be where lives, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And I'm just going to really quickly go through these aga1n. Three, you are moving farther clockwise?

  • And you see the dumpster where the

    were close to, correct?

  • And that would have been where and possibly were, correct?

  • And then 1n the fourth photograph, aga1n, turning a little more clockwise. In the background, can you see what buildings?

  • That is Building right here. And then if we move to the left, we moved onto Building and this 1s a portion of Building right here.

  • All right. And then the fifth photograph now you are looking east on Canfield Drive, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And again, you see a number of buildings 1n the background there?

  • Those would be?

  • I'm sorry. , which 1s on the north side of the street?

  • And then what are the buildings on the south side of the street that are visible?

  • Building , Building , and that may be a portion of Building right there.

  • Put your laser pointer on Building again?

  • And that was where the and were, correct?

  • And then turning a little clockwise. In the 6th photograph in the group. What building's visible there?

  • This right here would be Building , and this right here would be Building , a portion of Building

  • And Building 1s where lives?

  • And then on Photograph Number ?

  • We've moved onto it. This is entirely Building right here.

  • And then building, I'm sorry, photograph the 8th photograph?

  • This is Building here aga1n, and now we see a portion of Building right here.

  • And that parking lot that is seen between those two buildings, that is the parking lot where

    says she parked her car; is that right?

  • And then in the 9th photograph, mov1ng clockwise?

  • We are essentially see1ng that 1s all Building right there.

  • And that would have been where was?

  • And then also in that image, let me see. We talked about seeing the mailboxes in one of these 1mages. I hope it is in these. Pointing here, can you put your laser pointer right here. There 1s a black vehicle that appears to be parked there and then there's something behind the black vehicle. Would that be about where those mailboxes, those metal rows of mailboxes were?

  • It is. If you look at Photo 1 here, you can see the top, you will have to take my word for it, that's the top of the mailboxes right there.

  • And that would be where said she was near the mailboxes where she ended up. She traveled from one point to another, correct?

  • Okay. And then finally in the lOth photograph, again, we have come 360. You are looking back down west on Canfield Drive, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • Anybody have any questions about this group of photographs? Did I confuse everybody by redoing them? Are you all okay with this?

    GRAND JUROR: I just have a quick question about the photographs that were taken from the vantage point of the officer's vehicle. Is this taken from like where his, the door of his vehicle was, you know what I'm saying, or was it like midway of the vehicle?

  • It was taken from the driver's side front tire.

    GRAND JUROR: Driver's side front tire.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) So where the cone was from that perspective, was from where the left front tire of Officer Wilson's vehicle was on the street?

  • Yes.

    GRAND JUROR: I just want to clarify for everybody and myself, the only cones we should pay attention to are the ones that are orange and white, the solid color orange someone else put there.

  • The only cone that I would pay attention to is the cone that identifies in that first photograph where the detective would have been taking the photographs from. So I guess on the back here where we've identified is where we were actually taking the photographs from.

    So, yes, you are correct, these cones here, both of these cones here and this cone right here were obviously already there, we didn't place those there and those have no bearing in terms of the measurements that we took.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) So when you would move from one location to the next to take pictures, would you remove the cone that you had previously placed?

  • So any cones that appear on the front of these boards are not cones that you have placed?

  • That is correct.

  • All right. And then if you look on the back of those photographs, the cone that appears 1n those, on the back of the boards, the photograph that appears on the back of each board shows the cone where you placed it. Do show where the photographer was going to stand?

  • Correct. Had I known there was go1ng to be cones out there already I probably would have taken something different for us to bring, but I didn't know that.

  • Any other questions about these photographs?

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Just briefly talk a little bit more about in this particular case the investigation and about the taking of witness statements.

    Virtually, not virtually, but almost all of the witness statements in this case that were taken were audio recorded, correct?

  • And was there any reason for that, was there a decision why you were going to audio record certain statements or all of the statements?

  • By and large when we conduct homicide investigations, we record anybody with any pertinent information. And that's in this particular case or any other homicide investigation we are conducting. So it is essentially standard procedure for us to do that and so we did that in this particular instance too.

  • And many of these recorded statements that we've heard that other officers have taken have been at libraries. Detective was at a library when he talked to , correct?

  • Different officers or detectives went to people's home to interview them. There was a witness interviewed at the NAACP headquarters and so would each detective have available to him a digital audio recorder to take with him if he were going to interview witnesses?

  • They are assigned by the departments their own recorders and we essentially carry those with us everywhere we go.

  • I believe it was Detective and Detective who talked to , and

    , the I think it was that took the first statement from them that was audio recorded, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And then Detective took another statement from them later, what was the reason for his second statement?

  • The second statement was taken because we had received information that both and

    had shortly after the incident took place written notes or written a document outlining what they had witnessed. And, obviously, that would be something that we would want to view if they would give us permission. So we went out and contacted them and asked for permission to view those items.

  • So the fact that they both made written statements, they did not disclose that to you when you first, when Detective first talked to them, would that be correct?

  • That's correct.

  • So there was a decision made once you found out about these written statements, somebody else needed to go out there, talk to them aga1n and try to get these statements from them, correct?

  • Okay.

    GRAND JUROR: How did you find out about the statements.

  • I believe it was their superv1sor had made reference to it when we were contacting him. So they were originally told by their superv1sor to write down their comments or write down their account of what they witnessed. So they did that and that was ultimately conveyed to us and so then we went out and talked to and

    and asked that it was true, and they indicated it was and we obtained those.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Now, there was yet aga1n another interview conducted of and

    after Detective had talked to them a second time?

  • That's correct.

  • What was the reason for the third interview?

  • During the course of the investigation, obviously, it 1s an evolving investigation and we've we're learned things on a daily basis. If I can go back in time to when we were contacting Dorian Johnson.

  • And that would have been on the 13th?

  • Yes, ma'am. So during the course of Dorian Johnson's interview, he talked about speaking with, he didn't mention them by name, and And during the interview with Dorian Johnson he made reference to and talking with Michael Brown about marlJuana and about waxing.

    I had no idea what wax1ng was. We later learned that waxing delivers essentially a high concentration of THC to an individual in a very short period of time. So THC is the active ingredient in marlJuana.

    That didn't necessarily mean much to me until we learned from the autopsy report that Michael Brown had THC in his system and we learned that after speaking with Dr. from the St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office, that his level was elevated to the point where it could have potentially caused a loss in perception of space and time and there was also the possibility that there could have been hallucinations. He couldn't say that for sure, but that is a potential effect of high levels of THC in an individual.

    So knowing that waxing delivers a high level of THC to an individual in a relatively short period of time and knowing that from Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown had had conversations with

    and about waxing, we thought it worth exploring the possibility that either gave, or provided, or sold wax to Michael Brown. And if that was the case, it could have potentially explained some of the behavior that we witnessed from Michael Brown on the audio, I'm sorry on the video at the Ferguson Market and help explain some of the things taking place in this particular incident.

  • All right. Now, had either or in their first two statements to County Police said anything about having discussions with Michael Brown about waxing?

  • All right. Did you make a decision that you were going to attempt to reinterview both of those gentlemen?

  • Now, on this occas1on though, you did not go out to their homes or their places of employment or a library, you actually brought them into the county police department and put them in an interview room where you often interview suspects, correct?

  • We contacted at his home and requested he accompany us back to our office and he agreed to do so. We contacted at a job site that he was working on and we did the same thing for him. We asked him to accompany us back to our office for an interview and they both voluntarily agreed to do so.

  • So they were not under arrest?

  • They were not.

  • And when they were brought to your headquarters, did you bring them in during the same evening?

  • Okay. Did you interview them separately?

  • And those interviews we seen were video and audio recorded; is that right?

  • Prior to interviewing them you advised each one of them of their Miranda Rights?

  • We did, yes.

  • And that wouldn't be something that you have done with other witnesses in this investigation g1v1ng them Miranda Rights, is that fair to say?

  • That's fair to say.

  • And so why is it that you felt that you needed to advise these two of their Miranda Rights?

  • Miranda applies if there is an incident where there is custody and meaning individuals in custody, and there is a potential that we're going to ask guilt seeking questions. They were obviously not in custody, however, we were going to be asking them a series of questions and the purpose of the interview was to bring them 1n and ask them about this waxing.

    So we were go1ng to be asking them a ser1es of questions regarding waxing and the use of it and whether they had provided or sold or done anything to give Michael Brown and/or Dorian Johnson marlJuana or wax.

    And so based on that, I felt it was 1n our best interest to error on the side of caution, be safe, there is nothing wrong with doing this and just Mirandize them just in the sense of we are going to be asking them guilt seeking questions. That could potentially impact future situations if they were to provide us information that could implicate them in a crime.

  • All right. And so now when you brought each of those individuals 1n and began your questioning of them, you know, we've seen the videos, they both deny having anything to do with giving Michael Brown or Dorian Johnson any control substances, is that fair to say?

  • And they denied it from the beginning and yet you continue to question them for a substantial period of time; is that right?

  • We did, yes.

  • Now, this interview, how are these interviews different from the interviews that you have done with other witnesses because these two men were eyewitnesses or claim to have been eyewitnesses to a shooting?

  • That's correct.

  • Not suspects in the investigation, not even subjects in the investigation, but witnesses?

  • Why treat them differently than you did other witnesses 1n this case?

  • Well, if you've seen the video, you'll notice that we stayed away from discussing their accounts of the incident itself. And the incident I mean with Darren Wilson and with Michael Brown.

    Our motivation in speaking with them was purely to discuss the waxing aspect of it to see if there was anything that we were missing 1n this particular instance.

    So the reality 1s, when we speak to people, we're not always told the truth in terms of, right away 1n terms of what is going on. That's the reality of our job, sometimes people tell us the truth, but in other instances they do not.

    I mean, very few people are willing to come into an office and tell a deep dark secret or tell some sort of illegal activity that they've done after they have just met someone 1n a very brief period of time.

    So as such there are var1ous types of interviews that we can do. We can do it what I'm go1ng to call just a pure fact gathering interview where we sit down with somebody and we just document what they've told us.

    There are nonconfrontational interviews where we can generally discuss a topic with an individual in attempt to elicit information and there are what I would call a direct confrontation interview where we are directly confronting people and calling out those individuals on any inconsistencies or anything that we may believe that they may not be telling us the truth on.

    I don't have a hard and fast rule by 1n large, I don't have a hard and fast rule how I conduct one interview. A lot of it is just based off of how a particular individual is reacting in an interview or how a particular interview is going, but ultimately we are looking for the truth and sometimes it is hard to get that out of people initially. So we have to press them and we ask questions repeatedly and kind of like a salesman, we don't take no for an answer the first time.

    We, obviously, have an obligation to get to the truth to some extent and part of that 1s pressing people to see if they're really telling us the truth.

  • But it is true, isn't it, Detective, that throughout your interview or interrogation of these two men, neither one of them ever admitted or said that they have been in any way involved in providing controlled narcotics to Michael Brown or Dorian Johnson; is that true?

  • Yes, that's correct.

  • And your investigation has failed to find any information otherwise; is that true?

  • That's true.

  • And I think we discussed briefly and aga1n I'm go1ng to reiterate here, to your understanding, now you've completed your police report in this case; 1s that right?

  • How many pages 1s your police report?

  • I don't know exactly, 1,100, 1,200 roughly.

  • And so you've concluded your police report, but in reality does this investigation continue so long as there are witnesses who might come forward or want to be interviewed?

  • I would always add a supplement to the report that has been submitted if more people came forward, yes.

  • And isn't it true, Detective, or let me ask you this, if at the conclusion of this grand jury investigation if there is information that comes to you regarding this investigation that is 1n any way relevant or pertinent to this investigation, would you bring that to my attention?

  • And you're aware that there is no statute of limitations for murder or for class A felonies, correct?

  • I'm aware of that, yes.

  • And that a prosecution against Officer Wilson could be brought at any time. In other words, even 50 years from today?

  • I'm aware of that, yes, ma'am.

  • And if there would be, let me ask you this. You've reviewed a number of videos that people have recorded from var1ous devices, cell phones mainly, who claim to have recorded the shooting; is that right?

  • That's correct.

  • Have you ever discussed a video that actually shows any part of the confrontation from the beginning where from the officer stopping to first confront or talk to those two boys all the way to the shooting itself?

  • Okay. Every video that you have seen 1n relation to this investigation, video of the aftermath of the shooting?

  • Every one, yes.

  • Have you heard rumors that there's videos of the shooting out there?

  • I have heard those rumors, yes.

  • Have you done investigation to try to discover whether those rumors are true or track down people that have videos of the actual shooting itself?

  • Yes, we have.

  • And have those leads produced anything?

  • No, they have not.

  • And you're aware that even after this investigation by the grand jury 1s concluded, we've discussed this, the possibility that there 1s for some reason somebody out there has a video that they have not come forward with, if that video were to be discovered by law enforcement, we could represent this to a grand jury; is that correct?

  • That's correct.

  • All have heard the term double jeopardy. Double jeopardy does not apply unless there is a trail jury that considers the facts. And so if a case starts, if there is a trial that starts with a trial Jury, that's when jeopardy attaches and someone can never be tried after that if there's a verdict or after that they can't be retried.

    Your decision, though, does not create jeopardy. In other words, there's no reason that there couldn't be additional investigation in the future or another consideration by probably not you all probably would be another grand jury if there would be something down the road, but in this case, Detective, you're aware still that the federal authorities have not concluded their investigation; 1s that right?

  • That's correct.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) They're still looking for people?

  • Still trying to talk to people who have been unwilling to talk?

  • And if down the road those witnesses were to come forward with relevant information that may change the investigation, you would bring that to my attention wouldn't you?

  • Sheila, you have questions?

  • (By Ms. Whirley) Regarding the accuracy of these perspective photos, you don't walk it out with the witness that you gave information to test the accuracy of it? How do you come up with, you may have already told us, I thought you did, I want to understand how accurate the photos are.

  • Sure. In terms of on August 9th, one of our cr1me scene detective's jobs was to take various measurements of items of evidence at the scene. And he used what starts as a baseline at Coppercreek Court and Canfield Court, and used this baseline here and measured items during the entire, I should say, within the entire cr1me scene and those items were documented in a diagram that he completed with specific measurements, feet down to inches.

    So when we went back out there to take those 360 degree panoramic shots, we based, obviously, Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive 1s subjective in the sense that we are basing that off of where, again, witnesses were telling us is the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went.

    So that 1s a subjective point that we use that intersection, northwest corner of that intersection right there.

    However, the point where Michael Brown's body was located and the point where the vehicle was located, was measured on that day based off the measurements that were taken on August 9th.

  • And when you take photographs showing where people live and what building that they would have, their vantage point was, that's based on statements that they gave you as to where they were located?

  • Okay. So if you don't have that exactly right, then that's not going to be accurate?

  • Correct, I am basing it only off of statements that they were able to provide to us, yes.

  • Okay. And then you knew that swabs that were taken, evidence was gathered for DNA in this case?

  • The officer's belt, the officer's gun, some other items?

  • You were part of that or your team decided what to se1ze as evidence?

  • For the most part, yes.

  • Okay. And there's been testimony that Michael Brown was grabbed by the throat, was his throat swabbed for DNA sample?

  • Was Michael Brown's throat?

  • Throat swabbed?

  • I don't believe so.

  • You may not have had that information when you gathered that information. Had you ever heard that before that he was grabbed, the officer grabbed him by the throat?

  • I had heard that and as I sit here today, I couldn't tell you what day I heard that.

  • But you do know, no one collected a swab of his throat, his neck?

  • I don't believe his neck was swabbed, no.

  • Okay. And if it was, you would know about that; is that right?

  • I would have a report, yes.

  • Okay. Now, you actually had an interview with the officer, Darren Wilson, on, was it the lOth?

  • When you interviewed him? A

  • And you allowed him to tell you whatever he wanted to tell you, right?

  • That's correct.

  • You weren't stopping him from g1v1ng you information at any point; is that right?

  • I asked clarifying questions, but I did not stop him, no.

  • You even asked him was there anything that he wanted to tell you that you hadn't asked?

  • I do that at the end of all interviews, yes, ma'am.

  • And it was recorded?

  • It was, yes.

  • And I believe when you asked him that his response was, I think we're good, does that sound right?

  • That sounds right, yes.

  • So he never told you that he chased down, chased after Michael Brown because, and continued to pursue him and eventually killed him because he was in fear that Michael Brown would attack other officers who were coming to the scene, did he ever tell you that?

  • He did not say that, no.

  • That's all I have at this time.

    GRAND JUROR: I know that you and, I guess it was Detective and Detective Detective , I think he was responsible for collecting the duty belt; 1s that right.

  • Detective collected the duty belt.

    GRAND JUROR: Detective collected the duty belt?

  • Yes.

    GRAND JUROR: In your interview with Darren Wilson, did he tell you he wanted to use his pepper spray at one time, but he didn't. He thought about using it and then he thought aga1n because he didn't want it to come back in on him?

  • I don't remember the exact phrase that he used, but he made mention that he thought about us1ng his OC spray or his

    GRAND JUROR: Mace.

  • Mace, as you said. But he also made mention that he realized he was in a confined space, mean1ng his vehicle and in a confined space, that obviously can affect other people, not just the intended target I think 1s what he was implying.

    GRAND JUROR: So we later found out from

    that mace or pepper spray 1s assigned to each patrolman and we got our report from, I guess , and no pepper spray was turned 1n. Did you know about that?

  • No, I did not.

  • Let me clarify this, okay. So, Detective, the duty belt, what's a duty belt?

  • A duty belt is essentially a belt that goes, obviously, on top of the pants and shirt that you always wear above a normal belt that contains the equipment that a police officer is going to wear during the course of his duty.

    So it has a place for his weapon, his extra magazines, his baton if he carr1es one, his handcuffs, his radio holders, his mace, his taser, anything that would be deemed necessary for an officer to use in the course of his duties.

  • And you are aware, aren't you, that on the night or the afternoon following the shooting, Detective , who is the one who went to the Ferguson Police Department and seized the gun, did not seize Officer Wilson's duty belt, correct?

  • I'm aware of that, yes.

  • And did not inspect the duty belt or photograph the duty belt, correct?

  • That's correct.

  • And was it sometime later 1n the investigation that you contacted me and indicated that Darren Wilson's attorney asked us if we wanted the duty belt?

  • That's correct.

  • And what date was that that Darren Wilson's attorney contacted you, asking if you wanted the duty belt?

  • I'll look it up here to be sure. Friday, September 12th.

  • So more than a month after the shooting, correct?

  • And did the attorney tell you where the duty belt had been all this time.

  • He did. He indicated that the duty belt was placed in the trunk of Darren Wilson's personal vehicle when he left the Ferguson police station and that is where that duty belt remained until it was brought to our attention. And then from there he removed the belt from his vehicle and put it in a box and that box was then released to us.

  • So typically, Detective, lS a duty belt actually the personal property of the officer, is that something that they go out and get for themselves and it is their duty belt or did they trade duty belts with other officers.

  • I can't speak personally but for St. Louis County, St. Louis County provides those duty belts to each individual officer, but obviously property of St. Louis County. But in the sense of trading with other officers, no, there is no trading with other officers. Once that belt is assigned to a particular person, it is that particular person's belt.

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) So at the end of their duty they would, they could take that belt home with them that had their gun, their handcuffs, magazines?

  • Whatever 1s on the bet, that's goes home with them?

  • It does, yes.

  • They don't leave it at the station for the next shift?

  • They do not.

  • Okay. So now when you called me up and actually talked to me about having been contacted by Darren Wilson's attorney about the duty belt, we had a discussion about that; is that right?

  • And we talked about whether or not we should se1ze that duty belt?

  • And between you and I we decided it was a good idea to get it?

  • That's correct.

  • And when the duty belt was seized, however, the officer's gun, of course, is not 1n it because that was seized by Detective correct?

  • That's correct.

  • The other items that are contained in a duty belt, do you recall if those were in the duty belt?

  • I would have to look at the photos to know for sure.

  • Okay. I believe, have we seen photos of the duty belt, have you guys seen those?

    GRAND JUROR: We have a list of what was on it and what was fingerprinted.

  • Let me double check because I know I didn't call the witness who seized the duty belt. We have the duty belt as one of the items for you all to look at, but as far as whether there was anything in the duty belt, those photographs would show it. When we break for lunch before you begin deliberating, let me go back and check and give you those photos, okay.

    But at any rate, if there was things on the duty belt after the shooting, it is obviously conceivable that Darren Wilson, since he had possession of that duty belt from the day of the shooting until it was seized September 12th, could have removed things, could have changed things around and what have you, correct?

  • That's possible.

  • We also discussed whether or not we would try to process the duty belt either for DNA or fingerprints, correct?

  • And we discussed the fact that if you process for DNA, then you really kind of destroy the prints that might be on the item and v1ce versa, if you actually process for prints, then you might obliterate any DNA that might be on the item.

    So did we discuss and talk about having it processed for prints?

  • And you're aware that the duty belt was negative for Michael Brown's prints?

  • I've got the duty belt, so whatever is on it, if there was anything on it when it was seized that would still be on it, would that be fair to say?

  • It would still be 1n the same condition, yes.

  • And that would be police procedure when something is seized, you package it and document it 1n the condition that it was when you seized it and would have been photographed in that condition as well?

  • I do have photographs. If I haven't g1ven them to you, I'll go get them.

    GRAND JUROR: Considering this is a crime that we are sitting here discussing, urn, wouldn't everything on Police Officer Wilson be considered evidence? My question is, why wouldn't his duty belt be detained the day of the shooting when pictures were taken of him before he went to the emergency room and of his uniform, why wouldn't everything be considered evidence that day because that 1s very important?

  • Obviously, I wasn't at the Ferguson police station when the items that were originally seized on August 9th were seized. I agree with you in that it's important. I wasn't made aware of the fact that it wasn't seized until obviously a later date and I can't answer that question because I wasn't there.

    GRAND JUROR: So how could you do an investigation if you haven't collected evidence?

  • Well, clearly we collected evidence. We just did not seize that duty belt on that particular day mean1ng on August 9th. We did seize, obviously, his weapon and his clothing and those things, but we did not se1ze his duty belt.

  • Let me just ask, Detective, how long have you been a detective for St. Louis County?

  • Almost eight years.

  • And in your exper1ence, have you ever had cases where during the course of the investigation, other things are made known and then you wish you would have done something that you now no longer have the opportunity to do?

  • (By Ms. Alizadeh) Now, Detective, I mean, Officer Wilson, was interviewed by at the hospital, correct?

  • And we know his duty belt wasn't seized that day?

  • That's correct.

  • And it was the next day that you interviewed him at your headquarters, correct?

  • And I imagine was he in street clothes about mentally doing a mental, I guess, inventory of the items on his duty belt during the time he says Michael Brown was assaulting him?

  • He did make reference to that, yes.

  • And yet you didn't make any decision at that time to seize the duty belt?

  • I think at that point I didn't know that it had not been seized.

    GRAND JUROR: In your interview with Officer Darren Wilson on the lOth, what did he indicate to you as the reason why Michael Brown 1s leaving the car, why Officer Wilson exited his vehicle to begin pursuit what was his justification? I know what he told you us, I'd be interested in what he told you?

  • I think two separate questions there, am I correct? The first question is, would you repeat the first question?

    GRAND JUROR: What did Darren Wilson explain was his reason for exiting his police vehicle and pursuing Michael Brown on foot?

  • To arrest him.

    GRAND JUROR: That's what he told you on that?

  • Yes, s1r.

    GRAND JUROR: I know we've heard evidence that Michael Brown after he turned around and advanced back towards Officer Wilson, and we have our diagram of the crime scene with the measurements on it and I just want to make sure I'm interpreting all of this right. So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground that was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael Brown ended up. So we know for a fact that's a m1n1mum distance he might have advanced and from eyewitness testimony that placed him at the corner of Coppercreek, that dimension looks like it is closer to 48 to 50 feet; 1s that correct? So that would be like an outer

  • I'm going to look at this diagram also just so I'm sure we are on the same page here.

    So you're saying, obviously, this would be zero right here, right.

    GRAND JUROR: The distance was 48 feet 2 inches according to this diagram.

  • Correct, yes, s1r. So we would say, and you made reference to the blood on the ground. So from this point here, the red stains in the roadway are identified what was later determined to be Michael Brown's blood as Items 19 and 20 on the key for the diagram. So Items 19 and 20, so the zero 1s here, identified as being 31 feet and 26 feet 7 inches, and this direction here, and then you're correct in saying if we continue to move west on Canfield Drive, Michael Brown's left foot and right foot for that matter are, 48 feet 2 inches, yes, s1r.

    GRAND JUROR: If I did the calculation that was 21 and a half feet?

  • Yes, sir.

    GRAND JUROR: Physical evidence, eyewitness reports would have doubled that.

  • 21, 22 feet between the blood and where Michael Brown's body was when we arrived, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay. And a second question. We heard the audiotape that had the last ten shots on it, can you tell us exactly what that timeframe was from the first shot to the tenth shot there? We tried to approximate it, it was s1x or seven seconds, but do you know exactly?

  • I know that that audio was sent to someone at the FBI in Quantico who does testing relating to audio and things of that nature. I don't have that report in front of me and I wouldn't be comfortable in saying what those, what that analyst identified.

  • I do have the report. I can g1ve it to you. He did not time, there is nothing about the duration of the shots. The report just indicates that there were ten, what appeared to be ten apparent gunshots and a male voice speaking. It was just an analyst of the audio and it doesn't really say, it says nothing about duration of the shots.

    So I'd be happy to get that report for you.

    GRAND JUROR: There wasn't a craft line that showed time of duration?

  • No, that wasn't done.

  • Yes, sir.

    GRAND JUROR: In your professional op1n1on, I'm not a blood splatter analyst, but say Michael Brown 1s standing around the area where we know his body fell and he's shot in the head, could where the blood landed potentially have been, I don't know some trajectory or we to expect or understand that, I don't know what my question 1s.

    If he was traveling from the baseline you marked as zero the corner of Coppercreek and Canfield that would somehow trail, is there a way to know?

  • I'm not a blood spatter analyst either, but I think 22 feet would be an extremely unrealistic expectation that blood is going to travel that far.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay. GRAND JUROR: Did you have occas1on to talk to ?

  • I did.

    GRAND JUROR: We heard of some testimony about, but we haven't heard directly, can you g1ve us a quick synopsis of what he said happened?

  • I guess, let me clarify first. When you are talking about you are making reference

    GRAND JUROR: To the person in the video that we have seen, because what I'm trying to determine is, you know, what was his demeanor 1n the store in person versus what we are seeing on a screen.

  • The and the individual 1n the video, obviously, we may have discussed this last week does not speak English. So when we talk to him, we talk to him with an interpreter.

    GRAND JUROR: Uh-huh.

  • And through the interpreter he indicated that you're saying demeanor, meaning Michael Brown's demeanor?

    GRAND JUROR: Yes.

  • He said Michael Brown walked 1n and was us1ng curse words. He couldn't recall what those curse words were. There was some degree of a language barrier there and he collaborated essentially what you saw 1n the video.

    I showed him the video during the course of the interview that I conducted with him, I showed him the video and he corroborated that 1s obviously what took place from his perspective, but in terms of actual language, he knew that there were curse words he said, but the language barrier prevented him from explaining any further what he was say1ng.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay. GRAND JUROR: In your interview with Darren Wilson, his interaction with Michael Brown, that he thought Michael Brown had a weapon of any kind?

  • No.

    GRAND JUROR: He didn't indicate or no, he didn't have a weapon? He didn't mention it at all or he said yes, I know he didn't.

  • I would want to check the transcript for an exact account, however, at the point that I, remember, at the point that I interviewed Darren Wilson, there had already been one cursory interview completed with him or a safety statement completed with him. And in that safety statement and in that cursory interview, obviously, he made no mention of a weapon. So to some degree it was implied that there was no weapon involved 1n this on Michael Brown's part.

  • Detective , do you recall, and his statement will speak for itself and you have a transcript of his statement, but do you recall in his statement to you him saying that he saw Michael Brown's hand go into his waistband?

  • He did say that, yes.

  • But he never said that he saw a weapon?

  • Correct. Just 1n terms of see1ng a weapon, no, he never indicated that he saw one.

  • Did he ever tell you that he thought Michael Brown was going for a weapon?

  • In the sense of when Darren Wilson is making reference to Michael Brown putting his right hand, he described it as he put his right hand in his waistband and then started coming towards Darren Wilson. That would have been an instance where it could have been implied that, yes, there was a weapon there.

  • He never said that, the interview will speak for itself, I want y'all to review it if you need to.

    But he never said to you, I thought he was go1ng for a weapon so I had so shoot him, or do you recall?

  • I'm go1ng to check my report.

  • Okay. I'm going from my memory as well, I don't have copy of the transcript 1n front of me.

  • So 1n the transcript here he makes reference to during his first stride, he took his right hand, put it under his shirt and put it in his waistband. And then as he continues, he again makes reference to still charging, and again, I'm reading the transcript here, still charging, hand still 1n his waistband, hasn't slowed down. And then he again makes reference to the same thing, still running at me, hadn't slowed down, hands still 1n his waistband.

    So he makes reference to it three times there and then one final time when he says, when he went down, his hand was still under his right hand, was still under his body, looks like it was still in his waistband.

    So in that sense does he ever specifically say the word weapon? No. In that conversation that I'm having with him, me, as a police officer knowing that if an individual has his hand in his waistband, that 1s of concern to me personally.

    And so it was implied, 1n my op1n1on, that he was making reference, that Darren Wilson was making reference to believing that there could have been a weapon 1n Michael Brown's waistband, however, as you said, he never specifically mentioned the word weapon.

    GRAND JUROR: On that same note, we know that Michael Brown's hand was, had the severe lnJury with blood, so you would be able to look at the shirt and shorts to be able to see if there was blood in that specific area, correct? I don't know if you can to verify, did you verify that? His comment that he saw him at his waistband or shorts or shirt, did you look to see on Michael Brown's actual shirt or shorts if there is blood in that area?

  • There 1s both his shirt and his shorts are very bloody so.

  • It may be difficult to tell whether it was from that or from the body laying in the street and so forth.

    GRAND JUROR: When you interviewed Darren Wilson, did he at any time tell you how many times he thought he shot his weapon?

  • He didn't recall. And realistically in my experience that is a normal acceptable answer to hear from a police officer who has been involved 1n a critical incident. Very often police officers either don't know, or get the number of shots incorrect. And I don't see that as being something that frequently occurs.

    GRAND JUROR: Did he mention it to Detective 1n the preliminary.

  • In terms of how many shots? You would have to ask Detective that.

    GRAND JUROR: For some reason I got he said he shot four times, four shots.

  • I'm making reference to in terms of total shots.

    GRAND JUROR: Uh-huh.

  • Are you making reference to something?

    GRAND JUROR: Total shots, yeah.

  • No. I mean, clearly, I think he probably could deduce that when he went back to the station that his weapon carries 12 rounds in the magaz1ne plus one in the chamber. And, you know, he can, obviously, I don't know that he did, count how many rounds he had left. But he didn't make reference to, he didn't know when I asked him.

  • If you are looking for where that might come from, keep 1n mind that I had Sergeant testify about what he first told him, so you can review Sergeant 's testimony. We had

    testify about his cursory interview at the hospital, so you can review that. Neither one of those were recorded interviews keep in mind. And then there was the recorded interview with Detective

    , which you have that transcript. And then finally, Special Agent testified that she interviewed him, but her interview was not recorded as well. So you wouldn't maybe, you could look back at the transcript of her testimony and then also keep in mind that Darren Wilson testified before this grand jury and you could review his testimony to see if there's mention of how many shots.

  • Yes, ma'am.

    GRAND JUROR: What is the policy and procedure of when a police officer goes to the hospital to be examined as far as who is present 1n the room with the patient and the doctor?

  • Well, I don't know that I can answer that question. Obviously, Ferguson Police Department may have their own policy in terms of how they handle a situation like that. I would say with St. Louis County, obviously, you would have the patient and I would assume that you would probably have a superv1sor there who is there to provide support to an injured officer. I'm just talking in general terms here, provide support to an injured officer. And you may have another police officer there aga1n to provide support or something needs to take place, but I can't specifically answer for Ferguson Police Department.

    GRAND JUROR: And they would be present in the examine room?

  • During any kind of exam1ne taking place?

    GRAND JUROR: (Nods head. )

  • My guess would be that would be up to each individual officer whether they were comfortable with a co-worker or a supervisor being present.

    Obviously, if they weren't comfortable, I'm sure a supervisor or co-worker would leave, but if they are comfortable, I'm sure they could stay too.

    GRAND JUROR: And when the doctor is exam1n1ng the patient, would there be a reason for the supervisor to be answering questions?

  • I guess it would probably depend on what type of questions they would be answering.

    GRAND JUROR: But they're not the patient?

  • There is obviously an aspect to some sort of workman's camp or payment 1ssues or any number of things like that could arise that a superv1sor may take upon his, may take responsibility for. But specifically in any specific situation, I don't know. I think it would be entirely different.

    Obviously, just as if any of us got hurt 1n a work place environment, I'm sure a supervisor and/or co-worker would be there to assist 1n whatever way they could through the process.

    GRAND JUROR: I have one question, I have a couple of questions, one in particular is about his visit to the emergency room. It says in his triage report that the patient presented with St. Louis County Police to the emergency room for evaluation from home.

    And when we had somebody testify here, I just want, do you know if he went home first?

  • He did not go home.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • He went to the Ferguson Police Department at the direction of Sergeant and he waited there until Detective arrived. And, obviously, Detective drove, not with, but followed Darren Wilson and I believe Colonel

    from the Ferguson police station to the emergency room.

    GRAND JUROR: Do you know where Darren Wilson lives, or what street, or what I'm trying to determine is how far away he lives from the hospital?

  • He lives quite a ways away.

    GRAND JUROR: I just want to make sure I understand what you were trying to say earlier, I know everybody has asked some questions about some of the things he told us here versus some of the things he told you about.

  • Sure.

    GRAND JUROR: I want to make sure I'm understanding what you are say1ng because with my work I'll talk a certain way with my co-workers then I would with this guy right here. So I'm assuming that it is acceptable for things to be inferred, I'm a little nervous, it is acceptable to go unspoken that you know could have happened, that he would have to explain to us.

  • Can you give me a specific example of what you are making reference to?

    GRAND JUROR: Several things. I can't remember what Sheila asked, but she asked a question and then he asked a question about did he say he was unarmed. He said, well, several times that his hand was still 1n his waistband and I can see where some people would say that he was holding an lnJury or something, but as a police officer, and as a fellow police officer, you don't know that's what he was doing, you think he could be, so you're taking as a police officer that doesn't have to be explained to you.

  • Correct, I think just like it is in any industry or any line of work, I think there are obviously things that don't necessarily need to be explained or as you said, implied in any industry.

    And you make reference to the hand in the waistband. A hand in the waistband to me in a situation is an alarm in any given situation because I don't know as a police officer, I'm talking 1n general terms here now, I don't know is that person's hand cold or is it that they're going to pull out a knife or a gun or baton or whatever.

    GRAND JUROR: So it is possible that the difference is in things that he told you and the way he explained things how he told us could simply be you are a police officer and you know the situation, you know the type.

  • I think that's possible, yes. Specifically in the situation with the hand 1n the waist, I believe I knew what he was making reference to when he's talking about he makes mention to it four times, you know.

    GRAND JUROR: It 1s a concern?

  • It was obviously a concern to him and to me as a police officer, it would be a concern to me also.

  • Let me ask. I'm sure your lunch 1s here. If you want to follow-up with him after lunch, we can do that or you think there's another five minutes worth of questions we can try to finish with him. He's sticking around.

    If for some reason during lunch you want to ask him something else, you know, we'll bring him back. But I know your lunch is probably here. Is there anything press1ng right now that you want to ask him before break?

    GRAND JUROR: When you spoke with or interviewed Officer Darren Wilson, at that time was he represented by an attorney?

  • He was, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: At any time did his attorney say that there's certain things that you cannot ask him?

  • He did not, no.

    GRAND JUROR: He did not.

  • No. As a matter of fact, I think during the course of the interview his attorney maybe said two words.

    GRAND JUROR: So he was present there with Darren Wilson?

  • Yes, ma'am, yes. He was present in the conference room when we interviewed him. So it was myself, Detective , Darren Wilson, and Darren Wilson's attorney 1n the conference room.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe we've heard that his attorney was also present with him at the hospital?

  • He was, yes.

  • Had actually ridden from the Ferguson Police Department with Colonel 1n the car with Darren Wilson, correct?

  • I don't remember specifically if he was 1n the car, but he definitely was at the Ferguson Police Department and he definitely was at Christian Northwest Hospital with Darren Wilson, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: A public citizen or police officer walking down to the park, they're sitting 1n a car and they are strangled and beaten to death, that's a homicide and there is no weapon involved; 1s that correct? Are physical hands ever a weapon or you beat me to death?

  • Is it a homicide? Yes. A homicide is simply a manner of death, but more specifically a homicide is a death at the hands of another person so yes, it would be a homicide.

    GRAND JUROR: And hands would be a weapon?

  • Could be absolutely, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: So I'm getting to the point this officer felt he was in danger of being beaten to death sitting in his car, you could almost say there was a weapon involved at that point, that's where I'm confused a little bit. I understand no weapon 1n the form of a pistol or handgun, if you are 1n danger, that your life was in danger that you are being beaten to death, is there a weapon there or not?

  • Well, there's a weapon 1n the sense there 1s something in a hand?

    GRAND JUROR: Right.

  • No. Can you use your hands a weapons, yes.

    GRAND JUROR: Right. There lS no requirement to see a physical weapon, gun, knife, for a police officer or citizen to defend themself, or 1n the case of a police officer to use deadly force. You don't need to see a handgun to defend yourself with deadly force if you are police officer, you assume your life is in danger by means other than a physical weapon?

  • If a police officer

  • Let me stop you here. We're going to give you prior to your deliberations what the law states when a law enforcement officer can use force, when a person defending themselves can use force, and when they can use deadly force.

    And so, you know, this would be maybe his understanding of the law, but we have taken great pains to make sure we are go1ng to get you the law so that I don't want anybody to misinterpret it. So I'm just going to stop you there and we'll give it to you before your deliberations okay?

    GRAND JUROR: Okay. GRAND JUROR: Kind of a follow-up on what he's say1ng.

    Due to Michael Brown's s1ze and demeanor, could Darren Wilson have considered him as a person as being a weapon?

  • You know, these are all things there are, 1s the definition of deadly weapon including 1n there?

  • We can put it 1n there, deadly force is in there.

  • Here lS the thing. You all know from being a grand jury for several months, that there's, you know, for example, with armed criminal action, you know, you have to have committed a crime by, with, through the use of a dangerous instrument, a deadly weapon and there are definitely definitions as to what is a deadly weapon and a dangerous instrument.

    I believe once you see the law that we've written, it talks about what a person, their reasonable belief 1s. And so those things that you are asking is, could a person reasonably believe that their life was threatened, that's the crux of what you all have to talk about. And again, it 1s necessarily appropriate for him to answer those questions, whether or not Darren Wilson could have reasonably felt that he was, his life was 1n danger 1s something you all have to decide. And be guided by what the evidence is and then what the law is that Sheila and I have put together based on the statutes and criminal instructions and jury trials, okay.

    I don't want you to, I don't think it is appropriate for him to interpret the law. That's going to be your job and if you have questions about the law, because under the grand jury rules, we are your legal advisers. So if there are questions about the law as you are deliberating, you ask us those questions because we are your legal advisers.

    GRAND JUROR: Without relation to the law, have you 1n your dealings as a police officer, ever seen anyone knocked out by one punched?

  • Have I personally seen it? No. Have I responded to calls where someone has been knocked out with one punch by a neighbor, a person at a bar? Yes.

    GRAND JUROR: Everything that they are talking about, I just want to get back to the basics of what happened or see what happened. Necessarily walking 1n the middle of the street is not that big of a deal, but when it got to the point, I've heard it described as a tussle, a struggle and everything like that, so when a citizen and a police officer are 1n a tussle, that's a crime by the person tussling with the police officer?

  • I'm going to stop you there.

    GRAND JUROR: Why?

  • We have a rule on that too.

  • Because there are 1ssues about who was the initial aggressor, whether or not the officer was making a lawful arrest, those are all things that the law will tell you. You can consider whether you believe the officer's actions were lawful, and those are things that once you read the law.

    GRAND JUROR: So you are go1ng to g1ve us those guidelines for us?

  • We're not go1ng to g1ve you the facts and say if he did this and then this, if you believe this, then this. But we're going to give you what the law says when a law officer can use force to affect an arrest and when that force can be deadly. And then also when a person can use force to defend themselves and when that force can be deadly.

    There 1s all kind of things about whether or not the person is an initial aggressor, you know. And under the law, a law enforcement officer can be an initial aggressor, unless his arrest is unlawful. So there is all kind of things that go into that that I don't think he can answer those questions.

    GRAND JUROR: As long as we are going to get those guidelines.

  • You will get definitions also and you apply the facts as you know them to the law.

    GRAND JUROR: Just in case you don't come back, I need this for me. When starting your investigation after you already interviewed Officer Wilson, okay. You heard A of the story, there's A and B, but B is deceased.

  • Correct.

    GRAND JUROR: My question is, you heard his testimony, starting your investigation, you have

  • in your mind and then you go interview all of the other witnesses. When B doesn't have a voice, you don't make that your main concern during your investigation, I'm asking you as a police officer or a detective.

  • Okay. What's the question?

    GRAND JUROR: So the question 1s, Officer Wilson's testimony told you his scenario what happened. Of course Mike Brown cannot speak.

  • Right.

    GRAND JUROR: You only have what part A said, you don't have part B. So going off what he said and you are starting your investigation, that's your focus point, so do you like try to put everybody's investigation towards part A or you trying to put this scenario together?

  • Absolutely not. Do I try to put everyone's toward part A as you made reference? In the initial phases of an investigation, it's simply to, I'm summarizing it here.

    GRAND JUROR: Okay.

  • It is simply to find as many witnesses as we can and gather the facts. There is no skewing to one side or to the other. It's essentially locate witnesses, obtain their statements from them, and it is to gather the evidence at the scene.

    And then in this particular instance, right, I present it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury, and you can make the decisions from there. But there is no skewing one side either way, okay.

    GRAND JUROR: Thank you. GRAND JUROR: One last question. In your eight years as a detective, have you ever had to arrest a police officer?

  • I have, yes, several times.

    GRAND JUROR: Can you g1ve one example?

  • I've, well, this year I arrested a St. Louis County police officer for an assault.

    Several years ago I arrested a city police officer for an assault. I've conducted other investigations into police officers where they have been arrested for a sex cr1me. Those are the three that are popp1ng up right now. I'm confident there are a few others one.

    GRAND JUROR: Assault, domestic assaults or they

  • One was an on duty assault that took place at a MetroLink station and the incident was captured on video. The other one was an assault that took place, the officer was in uniform and he was at his station, he was getting off duty or had just gotten off duty and he assaulted several individuals and so obviously, both of those individuals I arrested.

  • Any other questions? And really, he won't be going far. If after lunch you think of something else you need to ask him to call him back, we're not going to start deliberations right now. So we'll conclude for lunch at this time.

    (Lunch recess taken)

  • This is Sheila Whirley, it 1s November 21st, I'm not sure of the time, it is after 1:14 or so. I did reach regarding his report and he advised me that his report would be more complete and detailed, and that he could have it to us by noon on Monday. I asked him what would be different, you know, or significant, and he said that he would be able, he can derive from the photos that he viewed once he was here the bullet trajectory and the position that the body was in when it was shot.

    When he was here, he basically answered our questions, but a report, when he would sit down and write a report it would be more comprehensive and detailed.

    He said he didn't realize, he hadn't started working on it, he didn't realize he could submit one after his testimony, but he could work on it and have it ready by Monday noon, before noon. With that 1n mind, I know you didn't g1ve us your answer as to what you had decided about the report, what do you think, do you want the report?

  • Tell them the other option.

  • I thought we would go to the other option if they don't want the report.

  • They should know all of their options.

    GRAND JUROR: If I'm hearing you right, 1n his report is he saying that based on the trajectory of the bullets he is going to show a diagram of positioning of the body that resulted in those injuries?

  • I didn't go into detail questioning of him, and that's where the other option comes in and we will talk about that in a minute, but what he said basically is his report will talk about the trajectory of the bullets and what position the body was in when it was shot based on his findings.

    Now, the other option 1s, as Kathi was suggesting, I could find out if you want to ask him a question, like you had a pretty detailed question right then, I could try and reach him again and see if he 1s available, maybe we could do a conference call and you can ask him some questions about what his report would say that he didn't talk about here or how it may differ or how it is more complete. Was there another option? I think those were the two options. Am I missing one?

  • The options are continue without the report or without a conference call.

  • That's the third option.

  • Or let's just wait for the report on Monday at noon, or let's get him on a conference call and see if he can explain to us what might be in his report that he didn't testify to when he was here, or we need to have him back live and in person for you all to question him in person. I'm not suggesting any of these.

  • Yeah, it lS up to you.

  • These are all your decisions. Sheila is the one who talked to him that's why I told her, tell him what you said.

  • That's what he basically said.

    GRAND JUROR: He said that he could tell, hit report is going to be tell us what position the body was in when he was shot.

  • He's going to be g1v1ng an op1n1on 1s my understanding is, he wasn't there.

  • That's different than what he said when he was here, so if that's the case, then I think we need to wait until we have the report.

    GRAND JUROR: What he said, 1s a pr1ma dona. How much time he need to do a report, a final report. Every time he says something, he change his mind, I'm sorry, but to me he's a pr1ma dona.

  • This discussion you should all have by yourself and off the record. Here is the thing, and this is one thing that, I wasn't part of the call, Sheila was. I'm asking her some of these questions because I asked her, now, I'm cross-exam1n1ng Sheila.

  • Not go1ng to happen.

  • Is he going to say something different than what he testified to?

  • And my understanding 1s, no, not necessarily different, unless that's a conclusion you may come up with. It is basically a more detailed and complete report regarding the trajectory of the bullets and the position that the body was in when it was shot.

    If you all recall something different that he said when he testified, I'm not suggesting that you are, but that's, you know, for you to decide. He basically said that his report would be about his findings, I'm repeating it, this is verbatim, the trajectory of the bullets and the position of the body when he was shot. I didn't question him any further than that.

  • So we have the evidence all set up in the room for you. First of all, do you need me to call back to answer any further questions at this time? No, okay.

    Now, you all asked about the duty belt, which we do have 1n evidence and you will be able to see it, but I have the photographs of it when the duty belt was seized, and it looks like this was seized by Detective , who you have already heard from.

    So I will let you look at those and I'll mark the envelope that contains those photos. There are s1x 1mages, Grand Jury Exhibit 107.

    (Grand jury Exhibit Number 107 marked for identification.)

  • Obviously we had some matters during the lunch hour that kind of kept me busy with things. I did try to look for that Quantico report about the gunshots that you hear. And I know I have it, I haven't had really time to search through my stuff for it. So while you are looking at evidence, I will try to lay my hands on that as well.

    You want to hear the interview of before you go look at the evidence? Yes. So, can you tell me, can I look at my little chart.

    (Playing of the interview of by the FBI. The following 1s a transcription of that interview. The Witness will be . )

    THE FBI: Today is August 25th, 2014. Time is approximately 7:12 p.m. This is Special Agent of the FBI along with Special Agent with the FBI. We are here to talk with This is regarding the Michael Brown, the death of Michael Brown. The civil rights investigation with St. Louis Division of the FBI. We are at the offices of his attorney,

    , if you could just state your name and spell it for me?

    THE WITNESS: THE FBI: If you could g1ve me your date of birth and your address?

    THE WITNESS: Address THE FBI: And you understand that this interview is being recorded?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: Are you fine with that being recorded?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: Okay. So we are here to talk to you today about the civil rights investigation we have regarding the death of Michael Brown. If we could just start we have here at the

    Can you take a look at this map and point out to me where you think your apartment is?

    THE WITNESS: Uh -- THE FBI: would be over here.

    THE WITNESS: Okay, THE FBI: You think it was THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: If you wouldn't mind just circling there and if you could kind of point out which side of the building you're on.

    THE WITNESS: Would be here. THE FBI: Okay. Can you put like a little star there? Okay.

    How about initialing that too? So we can look at this later and know that it was you that marked it and exactly where it is that you are at.

    Is that where you were at on August the 9th, 2014?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: Were you 1n your apartment or inside your apartment?

    THE WITNESS: Inside. THE FBI: About what time 1s it that you think that this has happened?

    THE WITNESS: About 12:35, it lS right before, about 12:35 at the earliest and the latest I g1ve 12:45.

    THE FBI: If you could tell me what you were doing that day, walk me through what happened right before and right through when you heard the shots?

    THE WITNESS: I was 1n my room, I probably

    (inaudible) Before 12:35 but I know I was 1n the house. I never did anything that morning. I was at home all day. And I was talking at approximately 12:35, the time that I gave, I heard the shots while I was talking to my friend on Glad.

    THE FBI: What is Glad? THE WITNESS: Glad is a social app that you can download on your phone and you can have a multimedia experience through texting and video.

    THE FBI: Okay. Is that on a Google phone, iPhone, what kind of phone?

    THE WITNESS: Android phone, Google phones and iPhones, I think have the access to that.

    THE FBI: Okay. Your phone is what kind of phone?

    THE WITNESS: Android. THE FBI: Android, okay. So it is an app that you downloaded that you can use to video text people, regular text messaging that you type out a message, that kind of thing?

    THE WITNESS: Right. It is a social app where you can talk and meet people, and you can also talk to friends, meet friends and send texts and video.

    THE FBI: Who was it that you were talking to go on Glide that day?

    THE WITNESS: I was talking to THE FBI: Can you spell that for me? THE WITNESS: THE FBI: Do you know 's last name. THE WITNESS: It lS a name. So it lS

    THE FBI: THE WITNESS: THE FBI: THE WITNESS: THE FBI: THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: So you were talking with that day?

    THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: So you think about 12:35, 12:45 1n that time period?

    THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: And can you tell me, what was it pr1or to the recording that you played for us pr1or to us starting this recorded interview, can you tell us what was happening before you made that recording?

    THE WITNESS: In the house with me? THE FBI: Yes. THE WITNESS: I never left the room, I was 1n the room most of the time. I was laying down on my bed. Calls came 1n, I was just in my room. Just really have the day, you know, just not doing anything at that moment.

    THE FBI: Okay. THE WITNESS: But just 1n the room most of the time laying down on the bed.

    THE FBI: And prior to sending the video messag1ng you already showed us, did you see or hear anything prior to that relative to this case?

    THE WITNESS: Just the shots that I mentioned, and three shots before.

    THE FBI: You think you heard three shots before you sent the video?

    THE WITNESS: About three shots. THE FBI: Do you know how long that was before you sent the video, before you made, I'm sorry, made the video?

    THE WITNESS: Maybe about, I don't know, maybe about five, six seconds maybe.

    THE FBI: Okay. You heard the shots and you think you heard three shots?

    THE WITNESS: Yes, it was loud. THE FBI: Okay. THE WITNESS: And I think, I said it to my roommate, one of us mentioned that it was very loud, and then I would need to send him a video. I didn't when somebody talking to you (inaudible.) Then I send the video, the video I heard more.

    THE FBI: So about five seconds after you heard the shots you started recording the video; is that correct?

    THE WITNESS: About then, yeah. THE FBI: And then the video that you showed us prior aga1n to us starting this recording has you creating a video message that has both audio and video, correct?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: There is shots heard 1n that message as well?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: And then do you hear anything more after that, you stopped the video, did you hear any more shots afterwards?

    THE WITNESS: No. THE FBI: Was there any time during that time where you went outside of your apartment that you would have seen anything?

    THE WITNESS: No, I was inside the apartment the whole time.

    THE FBI: Okay. Can you g1ve us your roommate's name as well.

    THE WITNESS: Uh, THE FBI: Can you spell that for me? THE WITNESS: THE FBI: THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm sorry, her name 1s I'm sorry about that.

    THE FBI: The , get rid of that, that's not right.

    THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: and he's your roommate there?

  • She, it 1s a girl.

    THE FBI: And she 1s your roommate at the apartment. Do you have any other roommates?

    THE WITNESS: Along with , a couple people staying there, but you know, just at that time it was three of us.

    THE FBI: Okay. was there, yourself, was there as well?

    THE WITNESS: wasn't there, after she moved 1n, he came after.

    THE FBI: He came after. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: Can you spell his name for me? THE WITNESS: THE FBI: How much later did he come to the apartment.

    THE WITNESS: Urn, after 1:00, maybe about 1:30.

    THE FBI: All right. So definitely at the apartment during the time of the shooting?

    THE WITNESS: He wasn't there. And then I remember him asking me is it okay to come in the doors and he eventually came.

    THE FBI: Okay. I think the other p1ece of information that you wanted to tell us about was a video recorder that was removed, video camera that was removed. Can you tell me a little bit about that?

    THE WITNESS: That came into my mind when I spoke, another eyewitness who was g1v1ng me details of the entire thing.

    THE FBI: Who was that that you are talking to?

    THE WITNESS: The eyewitness, was telling me that.

    THE FBI: Okay. And how do you spell 's name? THE WITNESS: It is kind of a name, I don't know how to. I think it is something it 1s

    THE FBI: Okay. THE WITNESS: THE FBI: Do you know 's last name. THE WITNESS: THE FBI: THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: Okay. So you were talking with about this incident, the shooting of Michael Brown?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: And it sparked something 1n your head about cameras or?

    THE WITNESS: Well, I was just trying to get information or details about what happened.

    THE FBI: Okay. THE WITNESS: Since I live in the community I was just curious what happened.

    (inaudible.)

    THE FBI: So she's the one that told you that this camera had been removed?

    THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: You didn't see the camera removed?

    THE WITNESS: No. THE FBI: Okay. Do you know which camera it was, did she tell you?

    THE WITNESS: No. THE FBI: Well, then that's something we can follow-up with her since you don't have any independent knowledge of that camera, it 1s something that she has the knowledge of which camera and who removed it from where it was?

    THE WITNESS: Right. THE FBI: Was there anything else in the shooting of Michael Brown that would be helpful for us?

    THE WITNESS: No, I can't think of anything.

    THE FBI: I asked you before about whether you would be willing to share the video that you showed to us today, is that something you are willing to share with us?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. THE FBI: We will go ahead and have you s1gn a form that allows, you know, gives us authorization to take that off your phone and take a copy of that directly off your phone.

    Okay. Anything else? I don't want to get into what she told you, what you talked with her. Do you have any information, a way to contact her?

    THE WITNESS: No. THE FBI: You don't. THE WITNESS: I mean, well, she has a sister that I talk to, so her sister.

    THE FBI: What's her sister's name? Is there a cell phone number we can reach her at?

    THE WITNESS: THE FBI: What's 's last name.

  • I don't know her last name. THE FBI: Okay. Do you have a number for ? s sister 1s the one who supposedly saw what happened?

    THE WITNESS: 's sister 1s the one who lives in the apartment complex.

    THE FBI: Do you know where she lives at 1n the apartment complex?

    THE WITNESS: doesn't live 1n apartment complex, does. Okay.

    THE FBI: Again, was the one telling you about this camera?

    THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE FBI: Did you talk to, your other roommate wasn't there, but your roommate

    , did you talk to that roommate, did that roommate, did she see anything, was she outside?

    THE WITNESS: No, she was inside. THE FBI: She was inside. THE WITNESS: She was inside. THE FBI: So she may have heard something, she was not outside to be able to see anything.

    THE WITNESS: Right. THE FBI: Okay. Again, any other questions?

    Do you have s address? THE WITNESS: No. THE FBI: Okay. All right. The time is now 7:26, we'll go ahead and stop the recording.

    (End of the recorded interview.)

  • Is that the only thing that we're listening to?

  • This lS Kathi Alizadeh, we just played off of Grand Jury Exhibit Number 49, which is a disc, we just played a statement from

    , which was recorded by the FBI previously, previous to his testimony before this grand Jury.

    Are there any other recorded statements that I indicated to you that we have available? Just for the record's sake, as well as for y'all to know, on that list I should indicate what exhibit the statements are on. So if at any time, even during your deliberations you want to hear it, I can play it for you.

    Sheila and I talked about the fact that if you want to listen to a witness' statement on a disc where there are multiple statements, probably if you can ask us to go ahead and cue it up. We can leave the room if you want to be alone and talk while its playing, there is a lot of people's statements on there that didn't get played because they say they didn't know anything or what have you.

    And then, but I will tell you statements that I did not have previously that I since have gotten. This is the statement of which was done, it is a two and a half hour statement that was done the night before he testified, and I've marked that as Grand Jury Exhibit Number 109.

    This is a disc that has a statement of that was done by the FBI on September 2nd of 2014. I didn't have that previously, that's Grand Jury Exhibit 108. And a recorded statement of that was done the day before she testified for you guys and that's Grand Jury Exhibit 110.

    So all of the statements that I've indicated that you have not heard you either have the transcripts for or I have them on disc for you to listen to whenever you need to, all right.

    With that being said. Any other statements you want to listen to? You just let me know.

    At this point let's go ahead and take our break for y'all to take a bathroom break if you want and then reassemble here and then we will go look at the evidence in the room, 1s that all right? And then you guys can let us know what your decision is about 's report.

    (Recess)

  • It is November 21st, 2:47p.m.

  • And my understanding is you're ready to get instruction on the law so that you can begin your deliberation. You've also made a decision you asked us to check on the report, autopsy report by I checked on it, I reported back and he said it was not ready, but he could have it ready by noon, which 1s on the east coast is my understanding, by noon on Monday. My understanding is you have agreed that you will wait for that report before turning in your decision; is that correct? Yes. However, you want to begin your deliberations now, correct?

    (Jurors indicate yes.)

  • We have prepared the law for you, we have prepared the relevant statutes, and Kathi is going to grab the indictments, they are ready. We just need to bring them in here and I'll pass this around.

    We have kind of reduced down the statute so that it is applicable to this case and easier to understand and read. Of course, if you have any questions along the way you can ask us by knocking on the door or ringing the bell. I guess r1ng1ng the bell would be better. And definitions that you think are applicable to the statutes.

    So we're going to the statutes, and will g1ve the foreperson the indictments and I will pick up the extras.

  • So the indictments that we have prepared there 1s an indictment for murder 1n the first degree, a Class A felony and armed criminal action and unclassified felony, there 1s two cop1es.

    There 1s indictment for murder in the second degree and armed criminal, two cop1es.

    An indictment for voluntary manslaughter, a Class B felony, and armed criminal action, two COpleS.

    An indictment for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree and armed criminal action, two COpleS.

    And involuntary manslaughter in the second degree and armed criminal action, two copies.

  • The relevant statute it pretty much lays out the elements of the crimes that you have indictments for. It also has definitions that might be applicable to the crimes that are laid out in the statutes that you are looking at, it 1s not a statute, it is an indictment.

    The standard of proof is probable cause, we did confirm that. So you guys, that is what you have been working with probable cause all along s1nce you have been grand jurors and that doesn't change. Even though this has been a very long, arduous task going through this evidence. Your standard of proof is still probable cause. You're not here to determine guilt or not guilty, it 1s probable cause, is it enough to go to trial.

    Now, what makes this a little bit different is that if you will look on page, the first page, it talks about assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree. And that's part of the indictment because the officer is say1ng he was arresting him for assaulting him. So that's what you would be considering 1n your deliberation and we have provided you with definitions of assault 1n the first degree, on the second page 1s assault 1n the second degree and the third degree. And then also a law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest. An officer can use force in making an arrest, got that laid out for you.

  • Real quick, can I interrupt about something?

  • Previously 1n the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.

    So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

    This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar to you that the law is codified in a written form 1n books and they're called statutes, but courts' interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the State of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, I'm sorry, United States Supreme Court cases.

    And so what Sheila has come up with 1s a statement of the law as to when an officer can use force to affect an arrest, that does track our Missouri Statute, but also takes into consideration what the Supreme Court says, okay.

    So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that 1n half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law. And then the thing that Sheila is giving you, that statement about use of force to affect an arrest, I don't know is that what you called it, is that the title.

  • Law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, yes.

  • That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use deadly force in affecting an arrest, okay.

    I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.

  • Did you have a question? GRAND JUROR: So we're to disregard this.

  • It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something 1n it that's not correct, 1gnore it totally.

    GRAND JUROR: It is because of the federal?

  • Of a Supreme Court case and we must follow Supreme Court of the United States. It is Tennessee v. Garner, not that that matters much to you.

    GRAND JUROR: The Supreme Court, federal Supreme Court overrides Missouri statutes.

  • As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that.

    GRAND JUROR: All right.

  • Just disregard that statute.

  • We don't want to get into a law class.

    That's that one and 1s that all you want to say on that?

  • Yeah, I wanted to point that out.

  • Use of force and defense of a person, and we've added use of force and it is actually, I'm sorry, we consider it a self-defense instruction. So the first one is self-defense as it relates to the information that you may have heard regarding Michael Brown.

    The second one 1s self-defense as it relates to the law enforcement officer. As you deliberate and looked at the indictment, if you have questions about definitions, again, we have provided definitions, so just refer to that sheet that you have. And then also, probable cause is the standard, but Kathi, something she added that, you know, I need to tell you unless you want to do it, I can do it.

  • Is that in order to vote true bill, you also must consider whether you believe Darren Wilson, you find probable cause, that's the standard to believe that Darren Wilson committed the offense and the offenses are what is 1n the indictment and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense, and you've got the last sheet talks about self-defense and talks about officer's use of force, because then you must also have probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. So you are considering self-defense and use of force in making an arrest.

    You have all the information you need in those documents that we gave you to help in your deliberation. But again, if you have additional questions, we're here, we're not going anywhere, did you have something?

    GRAND JUROR: No.

  • And that's enough to get you started and hopefully this will clarify things for you as you go through the indictments. And I think we have already talked about, you'll decide how you want to go through the indictments if you want to look at them one at a time, but you must make a decision whether it is true bill or no true bill for each indictment.

  • And as was brought up at the very beginning of this and what we have researched and discussed, the possibility of well, what if there's, you know, five people want to indict on murder first and five people that want to indict on murder second, and two people that don't want to indict. If you have nine people that vote indict on anything, then there will be an indictment. What that indictment is we will deal with if that happens, but there was some question, well, 1s it kind of like a hung Jury if we all can't agree on the charge. No.

    If there are n1ne people to vote for an indictment, regardless of what charge you are indicting on, then know that there will be an indictment and we will give you further instruction on what that indictment, what offense it will be.

    And the one thing that Sheila has explained as far as what you must find and as she said, it is kind of in Missouri it is kind of, the State has to prove 1n a criminal trial, the State has to prove that the person did not act 1n lawful self-defense or did not use lawful force 1n making, it is kind of like we have to prove the negative.

    So in this case because we are talking about probable cause, as we've discussed, you must find probable cause to believe that he committed the offense that you're considering and you must find probable cause to believe that he did not act in lawful self-defense. Not that he did, but that he did not and that you find probable cause to believe that he did not use lawful force in making the arrest.

    So if you guys need clarification on that when you get down to discussing it, I can print that out or something, you understand the difference, the distinction, okay?

    GRAND JUROR: Tell us those three aga1n, one 1s committed the offense?

  • Probable cause to believe that he committed the offense, which means that he met all the elements of that offense. You remember that from your grand Jury days. And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. And only if you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, 1n the evidence. So any other questions about the law?

    Okay. And then just one last thing is that Sheila and I talked about making, we can't make a closing argument to you and we're not going to, but I wanted to say something and I asked Sheila if she would, if we could prepare a statement together to say and so I just wanted to first thank you. We both wanted to thank you and how difficult this has been and the sacrifice that we know you all have family and jobs and we understand the burden it has been for you to be here for now 24 days, 25 days that you've actually been here.

    We also want you to understand that your decision, whatever it is, should be based on the evidence that you heard in here and the law that we've explained to you, not based upon what the media says, not based upon public opinion, not based upon your fears, you have to base it on the evidence and the law.

    And whatever that decision is, it will be the correct decision and we will stand by that 100 percent, whatever your decision 1s.

    And then finally I wanted to say, and Sheila agrees, but we wanted to point out that if at times it seemed like in our questions we were somehow expressing our op1n1ons either about what we think the evidence 1s, or about the credibility of a witness. We want you to understand as attorneys it is our job to challenge witnesses' statements and that sometimes, you know, you don't get to the truth unless you challenge a witness statement.

    We have not had any particular rhyme or reason what witnesses we have taken, we have kind of traded off just because we are sharing the workload, but if at any time you felt that we were trying to express our opinion to you, we certainly were not.

    Sheila said, as attorneys either of us can argue either point effectively and well because that's what we do, but in challenging witnesses, and I know that many of you have asked challenging questions of the witnesses as well, it is up to you to determine the facts and it 1s up to you to determine the credibility of the witnesses that testify and don't read into anything about what you think our op1n1ons are because really our opinions don't matter, it is up to you and what you guys think.

    So with that being said, thank you, thank you very much.

  • Thank you very much. And I just want to add, you know attorneys, they cannot stop talking. I have to have the last word. That I totally agree with that and we were trying to g1ve you a balanced presentation of the evidence. So you might see us go back and forth because we are trying to keep it balanced for you, and get to the truth and hopefully that was accomplished.

    And I think you are going to make the right decision, I think you are very bright, I have said that since I first met you many, many months, ago it seems now. Do you work, if you need anything, we will be out here. Thank you.

  • Now, do you want to go on record and say what time it is and that we are then leaving the room.

    I know I got the last word in, didn't I.

    (Grand jury starts deliberations at 3:04 p.m.)

  • It is approximately 5:55 p.m. and we are going to recess for the evening and reconvene Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. We are waiting on the autopsy report of and we are hoping it will be here before noon Monday. So with that, we are in recess for today.

    (End of Grand Jury Hearing Volume XXIV.)