This is not “breaking news.” This is standard practice. The law does not require prosecutors to present any exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. There is no cross examination of witnesses either. The purpose of the grand jury is to decide if there is enough evidence to bring a charge, not whether the person is guilty of it.
This is not “breaking news.” This is standard practice. The law does not require prosecutors to present any exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. There is no cross examination of witnesses either. The purpose of the grand jury is to decide if there is enough evidence to bring a charge, not whether the person is guilty of it.
@McAdooGordon Prosecutor: we belive Sam should stand Trial for murder. He had a weapon and hated the victim. Also the Prosecutor: I failed to tell the GJ that Sam was in another State at the time of the murder. Sounds like real ethics to me...
@KiltedRef If it was that level of exculpatory, then yes. 99.99% of the time, it's no where near that clear.
@McAdooGordon Does it even matter if it isn't clear? The burden of Proof lies with the State, not the Defense. It sounds like your theory is that it is only exculpatory if it meets a specific level of evidence.
@KiltedRef That's what the law is. f it's "substantially" exculpatory, the ethics rules require prosecutors to present it to the grand jury (the criminal law doesn't even go this far currently). If it's exculpatory, but less than substantially exonerating, then it's an issue for trial.
@McAdooGordon I guess that fact that a convicted lying Lawyer should be considered a viable witness isn't considered exculpatory. I wonder what they really teach in ethics classes in Law School these days??/
@KiltedRef Almost nothing on prosecutorial ethics is the truth. Prosecutors deal with severely unsavory witnesses every day; they don't see them the way the public does.
@McAdooGordon Obviously that IS the Problem.