Adding to the already substantial amount of controversy surrounding the Michael Brown shooting, a new report from CNN shows that many witnesses changed their testimonies during questioning and others admitted to lying about even observing the shooting. Although most witnesses attempted to tell the complete truth, the prosecution is under scrutiny by some for calling upon a large amount of dishonest witnesses.
One of the witnesses claimed Michael Brown was shot at point-blank range while on his knees. Upon questioning, however, it became clear that the only true aspect of the story was that he was shot at point-blank range. Another witness lost her credibility when it was discovered she made a racist post online on the day of the shooting and that it was physically impossible for her to be at the location of the shooting when it took place.
Some individuals are suggesting that the prosecution brought forth dishonest witnesses in order to avoid accusations of omitting evidence, which is not uncommon in controversial cases such as this. Others are accusing the prosecution of calling upon untrustworthy witnesses to try and avoid the indictment of Darren Wilson.
A legal analyst for CNN says that even though the prosecution may have been better off choosing a different strategy, the decision to exonerate is likely justified. Plenty of credible evidence was still presented before the grand jury despite many of the witnesses being deemed untrustworthy.
Whether a criminal defense trial is taking place in Missouri, North Carolina or anywhere else in the United States, the parties involved are expected to provide credible information at all times. A legal representative may work to obtain credible witnesses on behalf of their client.