That’s an interesting point about the Grand Jury. I was listening to KDKA on and off (weak reception) yesterday evening, while driving home, and the talk show host quoted some astonishing statistics regarding the success District Attorneys have in persuading Grand Juries to indict or not indict.) I don’t recall the exact numbers, but what it boils down to is that if the DA wants a case against a non-cop to go to trial, it almost always does. But in cases against police officers, the cases virtually never go to trial. You can call the Grand Jury a rubber stamp, or maintain that DA’s simply know how to manipulate Grand Juries — the results are the same either way. This brings up a strong suspicion of conflict of interest, as DA’s generally work very closely with police.
Having been on a jury in a case where I later wondered “how did this even go to trial?” (the evidence / case was so weak) I now understand better.
I do not have a solution for poor cases against non-police citizens being pushed through the Grand Jury process by a DA. But where the accusation is against a police officer, and gets to a Grand Jury, it seems to me that a completely independent prosecutor is required.
Otherwise you may have the situation as once stated by John. W. Campbell (to paraphrase): It is not actually power itself that corrupts, it is immunity.
That is a HUGE problem with the process in cases like this (and even in Ferguson). Local prosecutors, who work with local cops on a day-to-day basis and depend on local cops as witnesses in nearly every case they bring, should not be in charge of determining whether and how to prosecute officers suspected of criminal misconduct. Even if the prosecutors act in a completely impartial manner, the appearance of impropriety is simply too great.