"DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING THE
CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION INTO THE SHOOTING DEATH
OF MICHAEL BROWN
BY FERGUSON, MISSOURI POLICE
OFFICER DARREN
WILSON
MARCH 4, 2015
Page 78 Page 79
IV. Legal Analysis
The evidence discussed above does
not meet the standards for presentation of an
indictment set forth in the USAM
and in the governing federal law. The evidence is insufficient
to establish probable cause or to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242
and would not be likely to
survive a defense motion for acquittal at trial pursuant to Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 29(a). This
is true for all six to eight shots that struck Brown. Witness
accounts suggesting that Brown
was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous
signal of surrender when Wilson
shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are
otherwise not credible because of
internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of
inconsistencies with other
credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions,
if true, would establish that the
shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant
Constitutional standards
governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses
corroborate virtually every
material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the
physical evidence. Even if the
evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the
government would also have to
prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a
specific intent to violate the
law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown
was in response to a perceived
deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson
under Section 242 would therefore
be if the government could prove that his account is not true –
i.e., that Brown
never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson
over the gun, and thereafter
clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have
failed to perceive. Not only do
eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s
account, but there is no credible
evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a
threat to Wilson as Brown
advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not
permitted by Department of
Justice policy or the governing law."