“If we’re going to say, as everybody in the system does, that a prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted if they want . . . that would mean that when they choose not to take extra consideration given to that,” Hardin said.
That argument is flawed, however. A prosecutor both can get a ham sandwich indicted — and can get a ham sandwich not indicted. Because it’s a one-sided presentation of evidence, the prosecutor has wide latitude to nudge the grand jury in whichever direction the prosecutor wants it to be nudged. The prosecutor, thus, can push toward an indictment. The prosecutor also can push toward no indictment.
Why would the prosecutor want no indictment? Because the prosecutor may not want to have to try to win one or more of those cases under the ridiculously high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors don’t like to lose. Prosecutors, in some situations, may not to want to have their hand forced and/or their hands tied by a grand jury that finds “probable cause” in a case where the evidence nevertheless is rife with reasonable doubt, which easily can happen in a case of conflicting versions of events told by two people with no third party present to break the tie.
In Watson’s case, it’s not known (because the process happened in secrecy) whether and to what extent the prosecutor tried aggressively to get one or more indictments.
I see what you’re saying, and that’s true. They can push to have an indictment as well as not push.
I have a family member who claims to have been raped by a neighbor. It was sent to a grand jury. They didn’t indict the neighbor either, and I think it was because they couldn’t get pass the he said/she said reasonable doubt factor.
There was no question that a sexual act took place. The consent was the part they couldn’t ascertain. It didn’t seem to be a case that they felt they could win on the prosecution part.
Maybe that’s what happened here, too. Just speculating.