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.
Wrong. There is no attorney present to provide a counter argument, as in a criminal trial, and the evidence presented is always under the discretion of the PA/DA, and the knowledge of the grand jury concerning what has transpired cannot be as broad or deep as the PA/DA.
Thus, there needs to be the rules changed concerning them. Ergo, either take this to trail or don’t so that the PA/DA cannot say that it’s not their fault if the grand jury tosses it. The buck should stop with the PA/DA.