Thread by @Lizzidi

Alright, I know I’ve said this is important, but folks don’t seem to understand how truly significant this grand juror case is for accountability in policing...THREAD. 1/

Grand juries, though not used in all cases, are where a prosecutor presents the evidence they have regarding a crime, then asks a panel of jurors whether the evidence is sufficient to pursue a formal case against the defendant. 2/

Neither the defendant, nor their counsel, generally have the right to object or even be present at most of these, and most often they’re sealed, so the conduct and activities of the prosecutor and the evidence they present is not in view of the public or the defendant. 3/

While indicted defendants can and often do unseal such proceedings prior to trial (so they can know what evidence the prosecution presented against them to obtain the indictment) if the jury fails to indict, the case presented by the prosecution often goes unquestioned... 4/

If they present insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, the grand jury likely won’t indict, and the prosecutor has cover in case folks disapprove...in this way, prosecutors can shield police, while maintaining the veneer of prosecutorial independence and rigor. 5/

This means that prosecutors who choose not to prosecute police (who they rely upon for their other case work, and are deeply disincentivized from prosecuting) can hide behind grand juries and say that they tried, but the grand jury wouldn’t indict. Oh well! 6/

Even worse, because of the manner in which grand jury hearings are conducted, the ONLY evidence presented to the panel comes from the prosecutor and the police themselves. 7/

They can get away with this approach because indictment is not conviction...it’s just a hearing to determine whether the evidence the police and prosecutors have is sufficient to even bother bringing a case to trial. 8/

So due to the nature of these panels, the fact that the grand jury only hears one side of the argument, and all evidence of wrongdoing is traditionally presented in the worst possible way for the defendant, grand juries in Kentucky generally indict almost 99% of the time. 9/

This changes significantly for police. Prosecutors depend on police to present them with evidence so they can pursue their cases. If they go too aggressively at the police when they commit crimes, that organization might not work with them moving forward. 10/

This can result in the prosecutor being unable to win cases, something that will significantly impact their career as prosecutors and hold them back professionally. 11/

Similarly, police have no incentive to present evidence against their own...the few cops who DO speak out against their fellow officers often face professional repercussions too, and no cop wants to face potential murder charges for what they see as necessary killing. 12/

As a result, grand jury panels frequently are given little or no evidence against police. So despite the fact that these hearings are basically just window dressing for the majority of non-police defendants, they’ll be unable to indict a cop if they follow the law. 13/

By suing, the grand juror in this matter can show the world exactly what the panel saw when they chose not to indict...in essence, the world will be able to see what evidence was laid in front of the grand jury who failed to indict the police who murdered Breonna Taylor. 14/

If police/prosecutors presented no evidence, no testimony other than the cops’ word that they did nothing wrong, no evidence even remotely close to what these same prosecutors would present against normal people, of course the grand jury couldn’t indict. 15/

This one simple case, likely brought to preserve the dignity and integrity of the grand jurors, has the potential to expose the protection the police have over normal citizens, and gives activists a shot at pursuing better ways to hold police accountable for their crimes. 16/

Ways like having elected panels to oversee the police (here in Chicago, activists have been demanding #CPACNow for awhile!) and different prosecutors outside the system to pursue cases against cops, since it’s hard for prosecutors who rely on police to be objective. 17/

This is a vital case when it comes to challenging the unchecked power of policing in our nation...I am so grateful for the bravery of this grand juror, and so happy to see this case brought! END. 18/

TL:DR - until cops face the same accountability (or more, since they are state actors) as the people they police, there can never be true justice...this one simple case is a powerful one, and hopefully exposure of the inadequacies of our system can lead to badly needed reforms!