Actually my sarcasm probably flew right over your head so before you get to involved in self congratulations for what you consider a witty and intelligent post, let me spell my point out for you very simply.
As Superme Court Justice Scalia suggests and as happens in the vast majority of other cases ( 99% of the time in federal cases), the prosecutor would have presented only the evidence suggesting that a crime may have taken place, the grand jury would have asked his opinion of the evidence and he would have stated that the evidence was strong indication that a crime had taken place. They would have indicted in both cases.
The end.
The defendants would not have been given the opportunity to testify for multiple hours. The grand jury would not have been presented with contradictory evidence.
That's how it works for private citizen and I can tell you that's the way it works because I witnesed if first hand numerous times as. A law clerk for the DA's office.
|