Please.
It is often said that “knowledge is power”, but how much power do they really have if a prosecuting attorney has discretion over which evidence is presented, no judge is present, no counter argument person is present, and the PA has strong control over the room?
Only situation involving drug informants and the like should go to grand juries. The rest - either take it directly to trial or don’t.
Wrong. A grand jury can call any witness they want and investigate any matter known to an individual grand jury member. They can tell the prosecutor to get bent. That they sit there like bumps on a log doing what they’re told is disgusting.
The grand jury exists to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to suggest that a crime has been committed. The place to hear “counter argument” is in a courtroom, under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in front of a judge and jury, and in the presence of the defendant and his counsel. Presenting counter arguments in a grand jury proceeding would undo the entire purpose of grand jury proceedings.