Isn't that an abuse of power to railroad a citizen that way? Deny presenting a true and fair picture of what transpired?
Yes it is.
But my understanding is that in most states a prosecutor has no legal obligation to submit a balanced review of the evidence to the grand jury. He's prohibited from presenting evidence he knows or reasonably suspects is false.
But unlike during the trial, he is not obligated to present excuplatory evidence.
No, I'm not really comfortable with this, but then the grand jury hearing isn't intended to be a "pre-trial," which is what the Wilson hearing turned into.
BTW, the prosecutor could also have legally not presented any evidence to the jury that would fit the "narrative." But instead apparently he gave it all to them.
Yes it is.
But my understanding is that in most states a prosecutor has no legal obligation to submit a balanced review of the evidence to the grand jury. He's prohibited from presenting evidence he knows or reasonably suspects is false.
But unlike during the trial, he is not obligated to present excuplatory evidence.
No, I'm not really comfortable with this, but then the grand jury hearing isn't intended to be a "pre-trial," which is what the Wilson hearing turned into.
BTW, the prosecutor could also have legally not presented any evidence to the jury that would fit the "narrative." But instead apparently he gave it all to them.
IOW, the protestors are absolutely correct. Had the prosecutor wanted to obtain an indictment he absolutely could have. So he obviously didn't want to. You can consider this an example of the blatant racism embedded in the American legal system, or an example of a person doing his ethical best under very trying circumstances. Take your pick.