That a case goes to the Grand Jury does not necessarily mean an arrest was made or that the District Attorney has an intent/desire to prosecute.Gameover wrote:Grand jury for what? The guy came in his house to steal, kill, or whatever else was on his mind. They should be patting the guy on the back instead of treating him like a criminal.
For felony charges, Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution requires prosecutors to go to the grand jury to seek an indictment before filing criminal charges. It is the policy of most if not all (IMO) police departments to refer any homicide to their DA; they won't just freshen your ammo supply and tell you that nobody needs to find out, even if they think it was a righteous shoot. If they have reason to believe a violation of the Texas Penal Code has been committed, under law they have to report it to "some magistrate" (Code of Criminal Procedure), which may be the DA, city secretary, mayor, etc.
It is the policy of most (again, IMO) DA offices to refer any homicide case to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury, after considering the evidence, can choose to "true-bill" or "no-bill." A "no-bill" means that fewer than nine of the 12 Grand Jurors voted to indict and the case is terminated. If "true-billed," then the case goes back to the district, an assistant DA is assigned, and the case is investigated for further action or prosecution. A Grand Jury isn't determining guilt or innocence, only whether the district is allowed to pursue a determination of guilt or innocence.
So referral to a Grand Jury does not mean that prosecution on charges is being sought by anyone involved. It's really a check-and-balance system to ensure objectivity, to safeguard against unwarranted prosecution. Following that system means the responding LEOs can't be accused of making an arbitrary decision of guilt or innocence, and that the DA can't play cronyism and charge or ignore whomever he feels like.
Just my two cents, and since I'm not a lawyer or judge, take it as opinion only.
