When a Grand Jury votes to proceed to trial, the prosecutors who work for the DA have no choice but to present the case. They don't have to present a case with intentions of winning, simply for getting to the truth. I sat on a jury for a dog of a case about a man accused of stealing a truck. Without going into details, a six year old could figure out what really happened based on the available evidence. The Grand Jury only gets to hear the DA's evidence when deciding to indict. The prosecution presented the evidence at trial including the exculpatory evidence which made it apparent he was not guilty. They knew it was a loser and simply and competently went through the case. We returned a unanimous not guilty on the first vote. Prosecuting attorney actually thanked us as we were leaving the courtroom.
Patriot the DA should have charged their State witness and not Rittenhouse. Pretty clear Rittenhouse was running away, meaning no longer a threat, and the three stooges had not justification to pursue him, That now falls on the DA head. Amazing the State witness is the one should have been charged for two Homicides and the Da charged with aiding and abetting the State witness. and Fraud upon the Courts. Where have we heard that line before ? FISA.
(post is archived)