Not saying I believe the gentle giant apologisers, nor the boy in blue defenders...
But in how many cases has a prosecutor allowed exculpatory evidence, or even all evidence, to be viewed by a grand jury?
Doesn’t the prosecutor have one job, and one job only - to obtain an indictment?
Just wondering
This was covered on another thread a while back, which cited MO Bar ethics guidelines on Grand Juries.
The job of the Grand Jury, iirc, is to determine whether there is enough evidence to suggest an indictable crime has been committed. The job of the prosecutor is to present evidence, including exculpatory evidence, in an unbiased manner so the GJ can make a decision.
The prosecutor is not supposed to act as an advocate (this is spelled out clearly in the MO guidelines) The problem is that we’ve become so accustomed to the “ham sandwich” line that we fail to recognize it as representing an abuse of the process.
Just remember one thing, Folks: “It’s not the facts of the case, it’s the seriousness of the charge”.
Officer Wilson was charged with being white. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion. The facts about the black thug that assaulted him and tried to get his gun mean nothing: he’s an obvious racist and must therefore die.
This revelation feeds the agenda. Facts mean nothing to a Leftist, only the agenda. Even if this “witness” was disregarded, the meme will now change to be “why was this testimony allowed? It’s plainly a lie, therefore the whole case is a lie, therefore Wilson is a racist and must therefore die.”
The prosecutor is supposed to seek indictments ONLY for cases he thinks he can win. He knew he would not win, yet could not decline to prosecute, so he let the grand jury get him off the hook.