Not that there is anything new when it comes to the politicalization of views as to Ferguson, Missouri, and the killing of Michael Brown, but Paul Cassell at Volokh Conspiracy has added a new twist of extraordinary bias and cynicism to the mix.

It appears to be widely (although not universally) assumed that the grand jury will not return any charges against Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Brown. Some persons sympathetic to the filing of charges have argued that this procedure is not “transparent.”  Part of the argument is that grand jury proceedings are typically kept secret — and it is expected that this proceeding will be no different.

But this claim overlooks the possibility that grand jury information can be released to the public.  And, indeed, the prosecutor supervising the Michael Brown grand jury has promised (in the event that no charges are filed) to try and make the grand jury information public as soon as possible. [Paragraph break added for readability.]

Well, yes.  St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch has said he will try.  And, for reasons that serve McCulloch’s self-interest, there is no reason to doubt his word.

This procedure will make the investigation more transparent than just about any other criminal case.

Well, no.  Releasing the grand jury minutes does not mean that the investigation will be transparent at all.  More importantly, it does not relate to “any other criminal case” because most other criminal cases, the ones where the target of the grand jury isn’t a police officer, are routinely indicted after a cursory presentation of the evidence showing that there is cause to proceed to trial.  “Any other criminal case” does not include every snippet of evidence exculpating the target, regardless of quality and inferences to be drawn.

This is not like “any other case.”  What will never be known, regardless of the release of the grand jury minutes, is what was not proffered, the answers to questions that were not asked, and most importantly, why Darren Wilson presentment was not like “any other criminal case.”

Cassell explains that McCullough must obtain the authorization of a court to release the transcripts.  I assume his analysis to be correct, as it’s really not material here.  So taking for granted that the minutes will, post announcement of the outcome of the presentment when there is intense scrutiny on Ferguson, be released, they will come at a time well after the shit hits the fan, and they will require people to dedicate a fairly good amount of time reading them (of course, they will no doubt be summarized by reporters who have never read a grand jury transcript before).  Except for those with too much time on their hands or such deeply held feelings about the case that they’re willing to spend the time required to read the transcript, it’s an empty gesture.

But that can’t be blamed on McCullough, except to the extent that the reason the minutes are so long is that he chose to make a presentment unlike that in “any other criminal case.”  After all, after the storm that will come regardless of the grand jury outcome, all he can offer is transparency.

It is hard to imagine a court turning down McCulloch’s request to release the grand jury information.  This will make the Michael Brown shooting investigation far more “transparent” than just about any other high-profile criminal investigation.  This should be celebrated as a good thing, as we will soon know the facts.

Celebrated?  Perhaps McCullough should win an award, Most Transparent Prosecutor of the Year, for being incapable of obtaining an indictment against a person who killed another person?  Perhaps he would have been more successful had the shooter been a ham sandwich rather than a cop?

This is all nonsensical.  Transparency would be a trial, where a zealous and dedicated prosecutor did his best, within the bounds of his ethical duties, to present evidence of guilt, and a criminal defense lawyer representing the defendant zealously fought for his client.  That is transparency.

But then, Cassell’s final sentence reveals his point:

But, sadly, it appears that the facts are not really of interest to at least some of Michael Brown’s supporters.

What “facts” would those be?  The fact that cops don’t get indicted for shooting black kids?  The fact that we don’t really have much of a clue what the facts are, and what we do know remains highly equivocal.  The fact that had anyone other than a cop killed Michael Brown, he would have been indicted by close of business the next day, and we would be well on the way toward trial by now?

The point here isn’t whether Darren Wilson is guilty of a crime for the killing of Michael Brown or not.  The point is that the word “transparency” is now being co-opted to rationalize being fed what the prosecution has chosen to feed us, in the hope that we’re willing to eat it and find it sufficiently satisfying that we won’t realize it’s soylent green.

This isn’t transparency, but then, Cassell’s post wasn’t meant to do any more than bolster the support of the police choir at the expense of Michael Brown’s supporters, who really aren’t interested in the “facts” anyway.