of deadly force. The Public Radio later clarified that even if Wilson was indicted and convicted at trial based on the Garner ruling, the conviction could be challenged on the basis that Missouri law permitted the use of deadly force. The prosecution's handling of the case received particular attention. Roger Parloff said prosecutors do not usually exclude truly exculpatory evidence and that prosecutors do not typically indict if they believe the accused is not guilty, disagreeing with the notion that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment. Jay Sterling Silver said the grand jury case indicated a conflict of interest between local prosecutors and police, as the former needs to maintain a good relationship with law enforcement. Mark O'Mara said the unusual process was to avoid arguments that the presentation was to effect a particular result, yet despite this McCulloch was still criticized for the decision. Paul Callan, former deputy chief of homicide in the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, gave a layered response which asserted the choice to present all the evidence was unusual, but not unprecedented in controversial cases. Callan said some prosecutors use the grand jury process as political cover in cases which would not succeed at trial, and in cases in which subsequent investigations and civil lawsuits would raise further criticism. William Fitzpatrick, of the National District Attorneys Association, said it was not strange for prosecutors in police-involved cases to provide all available evidence and not ask for a specific charge and defended McCulloch's inclusion of evidence. Jeffrey Toobin agreed the exoneration may have been well-justified because a conviction would have been very unlikely at a trial, but the process that was used does not inspire confidence in the legal system. In a later interview, McCulloch defended the choice to include all evidence and not skew the presentation just for the sake of getting an indictment. The New York Times described prosecutors' questioning of Wilson as "gentle" and said it contrasted with the sharp challenges to witnesses whose accounts seemed to contradict Wilson's, and reported this had led some to question whether the process was as objective as McCulloch had claimed. The Times reported prosecutors asked witness after witness if Brown appeared to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, though few of them said this. Furthermore, contradictions in testimony by Wilson and other law-enforcement officers were left unchallenged by prosecutors.