rikki klieman has been a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney now a legal analyst for cbs news. what are some of the things a grand jury has to consider before it makes a decision about whether to indict the officer? >> well, they have a low standard of probable cause, which means just more probable than not, like 51%. it is not as high as at a trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is close to 100%. but they do have a high bar here because it's not only the charges that they must consider, which range from first-degree manslaughter and first-degree murder to second-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, and different punishments for those, ultimately, but they also have to look at this ultimate defense. you and i, your viewers can use deadly force if we are faced with deadly force. however, a police officer in missouri has much greater powers than that. he is allowed to take a life and, in these circumstances, officer wilson's story may or may not provide the basis for his legally being able to do that. >> pelley: cbs news legal analyst rikki klieman. rikki, thank yo

rikki klieman has been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. she's now a legal analyst for cbs news. rikki, let me ask you, if the grand jury were to indict officer wilson, what would they have to find? >> well, they have to find one of a number of charges. it has to be nine members out of the 12. they must find there is probable cause, that is a fairly low standard, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which we have in a trial jury, but he has a possibility of being charged with various forms of murder, murder one, murder two, premeditated, intentional, three forms of manslaughter, that is heat of passion, reckless, negligent or it all goes up to what we call this high bar, scott, which is the high bar because there is an absolute defense for a police officer, not only to just use deadly force in self-defense, but in missouri, a statute, which gives him extraordinary power to be able to go after a fleeing felon. >> pelley: cbs news legal analyst, john rikki klieman. thank you. after the historic snowfall in the buff he area last week, temperatu

legal analyst rikki klieman used to prosecute those crimes. good morning.rprised they're not being tried as adults? >> i am surprised but with this county, much more than any other county in new jersey waived to adult status. i might have expected the 15-year-old because we look more at rehabilitation for someone of that tender age. but when you look at the 17 year olds, you might have expected them to be transferred. so what would the prosecutor do? i think that he -- the prosecutor really did a humane act. what the prosecutor did was basically say to himself what if that were my child? what he did was, he looked at all of the factors, not justify the severity of the crime which would have been enough to transfer them. but also to look at their criminal history, if any. their ages. what possible rehabilitation they might. he reports all of these teens are amenable to rehabilitation. >> so if in fact found guilty, would it be different in terms of sentencing? >> huge difference, charlie. if they were found guilty as adults of the top count, that's a 20-year

cbs legal analyst rikki klieman is with us this morning. good morning. >> good morning. the anticipation was all the evidence would be closed on friday and the grand jury would then vote. what happens usually in a grand jury is it's simply a question of probable cause, was there reason to believe a crime was committed and it's usually a yay or nay vote. here in missouri and i cannot stress it enough it is a grand jury of 12 people. nine must vote. that is a very difficult vote to get. >> does it disturb you that you think they're deliberating? >> i think it might be the amount of evidence they heard. they've heard all of the evidence by the prosecution, all of the exculpatory defense. however, this idea of a deliberation is what we expect from a trial jury, not a grand jury. remember, the trial jury looks at is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt. in a case like this if it should go to indictment that could take days upon days. in a case of indictment we're looking at a low standard of probable cause. remember this, however, there's also the question of missouri law of a

cbs news analyst rikki klieman is here. . >> start off with this ruling. what is it that led police to say we have the right to say put your fingerprint on the phone and unlock it. >> there's a man accused of domestic abuse of strangling his girlfriend. there's video equipment in the house. so he has a mobile device that has a finger print possibility on it of opening it. the police say, look we may have evidence of exactly what he did on this mobile device so we want to get into this mobile device. so what the judge ultimately says here is this. look if you have a passcode we cannot let the police get in. but if you have a fingerprint and only a fingerprint that allows the police to look at it well that's just too bad, the police can get in. >> because it's physical evidence they're allowed to collect. >> absolutely. anthony. you could get a law degree. this is basic fundamental law. the fifn't amendment is testimonial. what we're saying is no one can be vetted to incriminate themselves. we know that from any tv show. anyth

rikki klieman is here.ht to make you put your fingerprint on your phone and unlock it? >> there's a man who is accused of domestic abuse that is strangling his girlfriend. there's video equipment that is in the house. so he has a mobile device that has a fingerprint possibility on it, of opening it. the police say look we may have evidence of exactly what he did on this mobile device. so we want to get into this mobile device. so what the judge ultimately says here is this look if you have a pass code we cannot let the police get in. but if you have a fingerprint and only a fingerprint that allows the police to look at this, well that's just too bad. the police get in. >> because it's physical evidence which they're allowed to collect? >> indeed it is anthony. you could get a law degree. this is a very good basic concept of the law. the fifth amendment is testimonial. and what we're saying is this no one under the fifth amendment can be compelled to give evidence against themselves. you can't be compelled t

. >> cbs legal analyst rikki klieman is with us.fficer and michael brown. >> we do. 90 seconds can be considered a long time or a short time and it all depends how it went in to the grand jury. we have to look at the whole picture here, norah. and what we have from these audio recordings and the video recordings is certainly evidence that could support the brown family lawyers of saying, look, that this officer never connected up that robbery with michael brown. on the other hand, the grand jury is looking at the whole picture. so the grand jur will see the surveillance video of the robbery. the grand jury will know that there was a dispatch describing the robbers. we don't know if he heard the dispatch. we don't know if he was offering to help. >> what if the grand jury doesn't indict this officer? >> we have to look at what their options are, norah. with very four charges here. murder in the first degree, highly unlikely. murder in the second degree, ultimately not likely because he has the defense of being a accomplish but you ha

." >> cbsusews rikki klieman is with us. we should add that ricci is the wife of bill bratton.hy the absence of an indictment? >> the absence of an indictment began when we began talking about the story months ago. and that has to do with physical evidence or what we call forensic evidence. the forensic evidence did not lie, we lawyers often say to the public in closing arguments to the jury we say physical evidence doesn't lie. only people do. what the prosecutor said in his statement and thoughtful statement last night was he outlined the evidence. he talked about witnesses who said they were eyewitnesss who said that michael brown had been shot many times in the back. many of them say officer wilson was standing over michael brown shooting him in the back. then of course when the autopsy leaked then they changed their testimony. what they said for 25 days of testimony, 60 witnesses and 70 hours, that the only thing that could really come true for these jurors in making their decision was whose evidence matched the physical evidence. >> were you surprised that the grand jury

cbs news legal analyst rikki klieman is here.ay? >> i am surprised. certainly the anticipation with all the evidence would be closed on friday and the grand jury would then vote. what happens usually in a grand jury is that it simply is a question of probable cause. was there reason to believe that the crime was committed? and it's a yes or no vote. how many people in the usual grand jury of 23 say yay there should be a charge? how many say nay? here in missouri and i cannot stress it enough it is a grand jury of 12 people. nine must vote. that's a very difficult vote to get. does it disturb you that it seems they're deliberating? >> i think the the idea of deliberation in a case like this might be warranted by the amount of evidence they've heard. they've heard as much as a trial jury would ordinarily hear. they've heard all of the evidence by the prosecution. all the evidence from the defense. however, this idea of deliberation is what we expect from a trial jury not a grand jury. remember, the trial jury looks at is it proof b

. >> cbs news legal analyst rikki klieman is with us.? >> we do. >> and 90 seconds, by the way, can be considered a long time or a short time and it all depends how it went to the grand jury. we have to look at the whole picture here norah. and what we have from the audio recordings and the video recordings is certainly evidence that could support the brown family lawyers of saying look this officer never connected up that robbery with michael brown. on the other hand the grand jury is looking at the the whole picture. so the grand jury will see the surveillance video of the robbery. the grand jury will know there was a dispatch describing the robbers. we don't know if officer wilson heard that dispatch. we also know officer wilson said that he was offering to help. >> rikki, what if the grand jury doesn't indict this officer? >> we have four charges possible. murder in the first degree highly unlikely. murder in the second degree, also not that likely because he has that ultimate defense as a police officer. that awesome responsibility

. >> cbs news legal analyst rikki klieman is with us. she is the wife of new york city police commissioner bill bratton. good morning. >> good morning, charlie. >> all the evidence that has now been released, why this absence of indictment? >> the absence of the indictment comes where we all began talking about this story back many months ago. and that has to do with the physical evidence or forensic evidence. the forensic evidence did not lie. we lawyers often say it to the public and to closing arguments to juries. we say physical evidence doesn't lie. only people do. what the prosecutor said in his thoughtful statement last night was as he outlined the evidence, he talked about witnesses who said they were eyewitnesss who said michael brown was shot many times in the back. many saying michael brown was standing over him shooting in the back. when the autopsy leaked, then they changed their testimony. what he said was at this grand jury listened for 25 days of testimony, 60 witnesses and 70 hours that the only thing that could come tru

let's ask cbs legal analyst rikki klieman.son made $40,000 worth of drawing sales on the potch. is that possible? >> i think to distinguish what is what it schblt when we talk criminal procedure, i can understand that. we talked about whitey bulger. when he was convicted, they moved him. that we understand. what happens in civil forfeiture is that it's a crime they say may have been attached to the property. the property may have been connected to some crime and so the government goes after the property, not after the person. >> this led to really interesting cases in terms of the united states versus thousands of shark fins and other interesting items. also you don't get a lawyer. you rear responsibility for paying the legal fees and court fees. >> there's really a disadvantage to the person whose property is seized. first of all the property gets taken, so then the burden goes on the person to say, wait. that person has to go to court. that person has to pay for a lois. that person has to face the burp that is verylittle. >>