Witnesses Who Did See the Killing

The Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation Into the Shooting Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri, Police Officer Darren Wilson was published on March 4, 2015, seven months after the incident, which occurred on August 9, 2014. 

The report's two most important passages were (emphasis added):

Wilson’s account was consistent with those results [the autopsy, DNA, and ballistic results], and consistent with the accounts of other independent witnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. 

Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)

and

The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Page 82)

--------

Wilson was exonerated because seven black and bi-racial witnesses confirmed Wilson's description of Brown charging persistently at him. Their testimony accorded with the physical evidence -- blood droppings and ejected bullet cartridges -- that marked Brown's charge and Wilson's retreat. Therefore the Obama Administration's Justice Department found that the following seven witnesses were credible (emphasis added).

Witness 102 is a 27-year-old bi-racial male. .... 

Witness 102 explained that it made no sense to him why Brown turned around. Brown did not get on the ground or put his hands up in surrender. In fact, Witness 102 told investigators that he knew “for sure that [Brown's] hands were not above his head.” Rather, Brown made some type of movement similar to pulling his pants up or a shoulder shrug, and then “charged” at Wilson. 

It was only then that Wilson fired five or six shots at Brown. Brown paused and appeared to flinch, and Wilson stopped firing. However, Brown charged at Wilson again, and again Wilson fired about three or four rounds until Brown finally collapsed on the ground. Witness 102 was in disbelief that Wilson seemingly kept missing because Brown kept advancing forward. Witness 102 described Brown as a “threat,” moving at a “full charge”. Witness 102 stated that Wilson only fired shots when Brown was coming at Wilson. 

All of Witness 102's statements were materially consistent with each other, with physical and forensic evidence, and with other credible witness accounts. Witness 102 does not have a criminal history. Therefore, if called as a defense witness in a prosecution of Darren Wilson, this witness's account would not be vulnerable to meaningful cross-examination and would not be subject to impeachment due to bias or inconsistencies in his prior statements. 

Therefore, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined his account to be credible and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit his potential testimony. (Pages 28-29)

and

Witness 103 is a 58-year-old black male. .... 

Brown turned around to face Wilson. Brown’s hands were then down at his sides. Witness 103 did not see Brown’s hands up. Wanting to leave, Witness 103 began to turn his car around …. when he heard additional shots. Witness 103 turned to his right and saw Brown “moving fast” toward Wilson. Witness 103 then drove away. 

He ultimately testified consistently with his original account, with the physical and forensic evidence, and with other credible witness accounts. Therefore, if called as a defense witness, in a federal prosecution of Darren Wilson, Witness 103 would be subject to limited impeachment for his two felony convictions ... but his apparent antipathy toward law enforcement would bolster testimony that corroborates Wilson. 

Accordingly, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined his account to be credible and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit his potential testimony. (Pages 29-30)

and

Witness 104 is a 26-year-old bi-racial [black mother, white father] female. .... 

Brown then turned around and “for a second” began to raise his hands as though he may have considered surrendering, but then quickly “balled up his fists” in a running position and “charged” at Wilson. Witness 104 described it as a “tackle run”, explaining that Brown “wasn’t going to stop.” 

Wilson fired his gun only as Brown charged at him, backing up as Brown came toward him. Witness 104 explained that there were three separate volleys of shots. Each time, Brown ran toward Wilson, Wilson fired, Brown paused, Wilson stopped firing, and then Brown charged again. The pattern continued until Brown fell to the ground ….. Wilson did not fire while Brown momentarily had his hands up. Witness 104 explained that it took some time for Wilson to fire, adding that she “would have fired sooner.” 

All three of Witness 104's statements were consistent with each other, consistent with the physical and forensic evidence, and consistent with other credible witness accounts. Witness 104 does not have a criminal history. Therefore, if called as a defense witness in a prosecution of Darren Wilson, this witness's account would not be vulnerable to meaningful cross-examination and would not be subject to impeachment due to bias or inconsistencies in his prior statements. 

Therefore, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined her account to be credible and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit her potential testimony. (Pages 30-31)

and

Witness 105 is a 50-year-old black female. .... 

Witness 105 explained that Brown put his hands up “for a brief moment,” and then turned around and made a shuffling movement. Wilson told Brown to “get down,” but Brown did not comply. Instead, Brown put his hands down “in a running position.” Witness 105 could not tell whether Brown was “charging” at Wilson or whether his plan was to run past Wilson, but either way, Brown was running toward Wilson. 

According to Witness 105, Wilson only shot at Brown when Brown was moving toward him. 

Both of Witness Witness 105's statements were consistent with each other, materially consistent with the physical evidence, and consistent with other credible witness accounts in material ways. Witness 105 has no criminal history. If called as a defense witness in a prosecution of Darren Wilson, this witness's account would be subject to limited impeachment on her ability to accurately perceive what occurred, e.g., that she perceived Wilson driving a car, rather than an SUV. However, that line of cross-examination does not undermine the overall consistency of her account with other credible witness accounts and with the physical evidence. 

Accordingly, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined her account to be credible and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit her potential testimony. (Page 31)

and

Witness 108 is a 74-year-old black male .... 

The police officer was “in the right” and “did what he had to do,” and …. he “would have fucking shot that boy too.” Wilson told Brown to “stop” or “get down” at least ten times, but instead Brown “charged” at Wilson. 

Witness 108 has no criminal history. Witness 108's accounts, although quite general, are clearly exculpatory as to Wilson and consistent with other credible evidence. 

His reluctance to testify in opposition to community sentiment lends further credence to his account.(Page 32)

and

Witness 109 is a 53-year-old black male. .... 

Brown ran away from Wilson but then kept coming toward Wilson. Wilson told Brown to stop and lie down, but Brown failed to comply. …. 

Wilson did not shoot to kill at first, but “he unloaded on him when [Brown] wouldn’t stop.” 

Witness 109 does have a criminal history that would be admissible in a federal court. Witness 109 has a misdemeanor theft conviction from 1985 and a felony arrest, both of which likely would be inadmissible in federal court for impeachment purposes. Witness 109's account is exculpatory as to Wilson and although Witness 109 may be subject to limited impeachment, the majority of his description is consistent with the physical and forensic evidence, and consistent with other credible witness accounts. 

Community sentiment and therefore his reluctance to testify on behalf of Wilson would likely bolster his account. (Pages 32-33)

and

Witness 113 is a 31-year-old black female. .... 

She saw Brown running toward Wilson, prompting Wilson to yell, “Freeze.” Brown failed to stop, and Wilson began shooting Brown. 

Witness 113 has no criminal history that would be admissible in federal court. Witness 113 has past arrests but no convictions, which likely would be inadmissible in federal court. In a federal prosecution, if served and called to testify on behalf of Wilson, federal prosecutors could subject Witness 113 to cross-examination due to her admittedly untruthful statements during the first part of her interview with the FBI. However, the reasons for being untruthful, coupled with the fact that she immediately changed course when her statements were challenged, give her account reliability. 

Accordingly, prosecutors did not discount her narrative in its entirety, but rather in examining all of the evidence, considered this witness's account in making a prosecutive decision. (Pages 33-34)

==========

In later posts, I will call

* Witness 102 by the nick-name House Repairman.

* Witness 103 by the nick-name Pickup Driver.

* Witness 104 by the nick-name Minivan Daughter