An Underdog Reformer Just Unseated the Prosecutor Who Handled the Ferguson Police Shooting

Robert McCulloch never brought charges against the police who shot Michael Brown. Voters decided to replace him with Wesley Bell.

Ferguson city council member Wesley Bell speaks during the dedication of a new community empowerment center in Ferguson, Missouri, in July.Jeff Roberson/Associated Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Nearly four years to the day after a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown, voters in the state’s primary election on Tuesday ousted the long-standing county prosecutor who faced fierce criticism for his handling of the case.

Robert McCulloch, 67, who has been the St. Louis county prosecutor for almost three decades, failed to indict the officer who killed Brown in 2014, an incident that sparked widespread protests and galvanized a national conversation about police brutality against people of color. His opponent in the primary, Wesley Bell, is a 43-year-old Ferguson city councilman and former public defender, prosecutor, and judge who helped push police accountability and court reforms in Ferguson after Brown’s killing, and who campaigned on a progressive platform of ending cash bail for nonviolent offenses and fighting mass incarceration. 

With 89 percent of ballots counted, Bell declared victory late Tuesday night, with 55 percent of the vote over McCulloch’s 45 percent. Both are Democrats. No Republicans were on the ballot for the primary race, so Bell will run unopposed in the general election in November.

“People keep saying, ‘You shocked the world,’” Bell told supporters at an election watch party. “No, we shocked the world. People showed up and showed out.”

Much of the campaign centered on the aftermath of Brown’s killing. The son of a police officer, McCulloch, who is white, came under criticism when he declined to recuse himself from the case; critics argued he was biased because his father was killed by a black suspect when he was a kid. He also faced backlash over the grand jury process, after he flooded jurors with documents and testimony but did not recommend whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson.

Incumbent Robert McCulloch

Jeff Roberson/AP

Bell, who is black, is also the son of a cop. He pledged during the campaign to recuse himself in cases involving police shootings, noting that prosecutors often have close relationships with police officers they work with. “It was completely inappropriate for him to handle that case,” he told the New York Times of McCulloch. McCulloch has defended his decision not to recuse himself and said during the campaign that he remains committed to helping crime victims, noting that too many are black men. “That’s something that people should be out protesting,” he told the Associated Press.

Bell’s reform-minded platform won him the support of national progressive groups like Color of Change and Shaun King’s Real Justice PAC, which criticized McCulloch’s use of drug-war tactics and his history of sending defendants to death row, along with his track record on police shooting cases. After Brown’s death, when McCulloch ran unopposed for reelection in 2014, some 11,000 voters opted to enter the name of someone else on the ballot. But Bell was an underdog in the primary race, trailing far behind in fundraising, and McCulloch insisted that he lacked enough know-how for the position. “The public has the confidence in the job I’ve done,” McCulloch said during a candidate forum last month. “It takes experience. It takes knowledge.”

Since becoming St. Louis’ top prosecutor in 1991, McCulloch has only faced three challengers in reelection bids, and Bell was the first since Brown’s shooting. As my colleague Brandon Patterson has reported, that’s not uncommon: Eighty-five percent of district attorney incumbents nationally run unopposed for reelection. But it’s beginning to change. Progressive groups, pointing out that prosecutors have enormous power in the criminal justice system, are increasingly channeling funds into the campaigns of reformist candidates like Bell and District Attorney Larry Krasner in Philadelphia.

“People realize the need for change, they realize the need for criminal justice reform,” Bell told the Appeal ahead of the primary vote. “When we talk about reforming the cash bail system or ending mass incarceration, I wouldn’t call those radical. I would call those policies that work and help people.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate