It is my understanding that Grand Juries are presented only with the evidence that would support indictment or that the evidence leans disproportianately in that direction. Also isn't it the judge who decides what evidence shall be presented? Someone correct me if I am wrong. But isn't the grand jury's proceedings not subject to the same rules of discovery that an actual trial would be?
I would be very cautious in concluding that this indictment is any proof of wrong doing.
They can look at any fact, or non fact without reguard to how it was gained.
A member of the DA's office is present to guide and present facts.
The Grand Jury can ask the member of the DA's office to leave, and then they are refered to as a runaway Grand Jury.