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.
@CrisisActionTm This 👆🏻is wrong. It is not unethical for a prosecutor not to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. It’s the way it works. Because a grand jury is not determining guilt but rather whether a minimum amount of evidence exists to warrant a charge.
@CrisisActionTm Section (g) means a prosecutor can't present a case to the grand jury that they think lacks probable cause because of "substantial" exculpatory evidence; that's not the same thing as a duty to present any exculpatory evidence of which they are aware.
@CrisisActionTm You said: "Prosecutorial & attorney ethics strictly forbid such abuses." See your tweet earlier in this thread. The "abuse" at issue was the failure to present exculpatory evidence, which I had said was not required & which was what you were responding to. 🙄