[Law is not justice but process]

The D.A. is only held accountable for the information he actually has. If he knew the information was exculpatory and you could prove he was willfully blind, perhaps it might get somewhere. He is under a continuing obligation to investigate the case and provide new information to the defense.

It would be very hard to prove he did something for electoral gain. Perhaps if someone on the inside ratted him out.

I will say this, if the defendants really offered to talk to him before he went to the Grand Jury and he went without seeing proffered evidence such as pictures, his constituents should conclude he is too stupid to be reelected. My prosecutor's instinct tells me that a defendant who offers evidence before a charge is indicted is not trying to fool you. If they want to fool you, they hold it to the last minute in hopes you will not have time to thoroughly investigate it. I also heard the defendants all offered to take polygraphs. That is another clue to slow down and look at what the defense is offering. I have had people volunteer for polygraphs and then fail them, and I have also had defendants proffer false alibi evidence. It is always nice to know about that before you commit yourself, though.

[Krodg]

The D.A. is only held accountable for the information he actually has.

So, if the D.A. doesn't seek any information outside of what the accuser says, he can just bring bogus charges on anyone?