The DA can take the death penalty off the table, Winters did that in at least two cases this year. The Grand Jury signs off on the murder indictment thing, and then the DA decides whether or not to pursue it as a death penalty case. I personally think it would up the chances of a conviction if the jury is on the fence.
I don't see that happening. First of all this is NOT the only case where Mercer grads are on both sides, I would bet MOST of the cases that are tried in Bibb are that way!
Secondly there are political concerns here, if a special prosecutor were assigned a good portion of the public could get VERY angry, some folks already resent the fact that the story gets so much coverage when there are lots of black on black murders in Macon that don't. Special prosecutors are for the benefit of special people, if you get my meaning. Besides why would they need one? Certainly not due to corruption, maybe incompetence, but you can be sure the DA really WANTS to win the case, and in November he could easily be voted out anyway.
Thirdly I think the defense wants the trial to stay in Bibb, sure there has been a lot of coverage but I have heard that the demographics here can favor the defense. I believe it is up to the defense to ask for a change of venue and they have not done so.
bbm: Yeah, I said earlier I bet having the legal players all Mercer law grads is not too unusual in Macon; it's when you add the victim and accused -- and, as pearl has pointed out, likely a lot of witnesses -- that it gets really unusual.
Still, I guess "all from the same law school" is not all that far removed from "all from the same town" -- it is a
little different, IMO, but not so much that I think the alum-preponderance
alone should prevent a fair trial. Throw in other factors, now, and ... maybe.
Anger over a special prosecutor -- from a racial angle? Oh, there's those who might give that some lip service, but I think overall not. Plenty of white on white, black on white, and white on black crime that doesn't get "special" attention. This has been a "special" case from the get-go, and I think most people, any race, understand why. Some folks just like to complain about everything, but I think it's just a vocal few.
But I, too, was interested in upon what
grounds some think a special prosecutor might be needed. You mentioned corruption and incompetence as possible grounds (not saying they are applicable here), and I guess conflict of interest would be in there, too. Incompetence ... well, it
looks, IMO, like some apparent blunders may have been made, but in truth I expect some usually are -- we just know more about the ones in this case because of the high profile. Also, if or how any "blunders" will end up affecting the case, who can tell, at this point.
Who makes the decision, anyhow, that a special prosecutor is needed? Sometimes, I think, it is the current prosecutor him/herself -- but who else can?
