I'm reading that as a grand jury in the indictment process..
in other words, a D.A. stands in front of a jury and presents some facts and the grand jury decides whether or not to hand down an indictment. This could easily have been a case of the D.A. not wanting to provide much factual basis surrounding the event so an indictment wouldn't be handed down.
If the D.A. was truthful and wanted the indictment, then the jurors should be ashamed that this man was allowed to walk free after this. I wonder if the grand jury would come to the same conclusion had it been a civilian?
|