Whats your point? You're still stating your opinion on the outcome. The prosecutor could have gotten an indictment if he wanted to. There's no debating that. That's how the process works. In a trial everything would have changed with cross examinations and public witnesses and the public hearing everything. Added with a special prosecutor who actually is interested in trying the case.gut;1679891 wrote:I don't have to. You do realize TWELVE jurors need to unanimously decide he's guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".? Why do all the people who have a problem with "justice" in this case appear to have no clue how the legal system works?
You sat on a grand jury and still don't know how it works - how shitty was that prosecutor?
I sat on grand jury and told you how it works. Sorry if you don't like it. Maybe if you sit on one you'll see it's the prosecutors decision. Or if a detective or police chief has some pull they'll have you "listen to more evidence" if you return a no bill that they don't agree with.