A grand jury determines pnobable cause, the prosector should have no say in whether the state can prove the case. In fact, why bring it before a grand jury if one is not inclined to be bound by their decision? Another travesty even though in this case the subject may have indeed not been guilty of murder, however, the charge was not murder, it was child abuse apparently.
Actually the purpose of a Grand Jury is protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by a DA.
The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
A presumption of innocence would permit a DA to refrain from indicting an individual.
What I consider odd is that the DA would take the case to a Grand Jury if he did not consider the evidence adequate to go to trial in the first place.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury”
Which is exactly what was to happen...the grand jury returned a true bill regarding child abuse. The prosecutor declined to sign it? I am not familiar with criminal procedure in Colorado but it seems to me if the prosecutor presented the case for indictment, he would be bound to abide by the decision of the jurors. He could in the interest of justice move to have the indictment dismissed and present that before a court, no? But not signing it makes no sense. I also agree, why bring it to the GJ in the first place? Perhaps this was a CYA that blew up in his face???
The situation is much worse in reverse, when the grand jury clearly would not indict, so the prosecutor decides not to submit it to the grand jury and presses on with his own indictment. That’s what happened to George Zimmerman.
The problem here is that the grand jury is presented one side of the case, which was not even for the murder of Jon Benet.
The problem here is that the grand jury is presented one side of the case, which was not even for the murder of Jon Benet.