IMO, I believe you have it mostly correct. IANAL or DA.surprise_i'm_armed wrote:MoJo:
Please clarify this for me: Isn't the DA or the ADA (Assistant DA) the one who PRESENTS the case to
the Grand Jury?
1. Doesn't the learned opinion of the DA greatly influence the Grand Jury as to whether a "true bill" is generated?
2. In other words, if the DA wants to indict someone he presents the case that way to the Grand Jury.
3. If he thinks the case is weak, he steers the Grand Jury to a "no bill".
I'm hazy on just how this works.
SIA
1. The evidence and the opinion of the DA will determine how hard he wants to prosecute the case. As you know, DAs are politicians so sometimes the prosecution has political motives. Also, DAs are motivated to win so most will not prosecute a case they do not think they can win.
2. If the DA wants the grand jury to indict, he will present a strong case. Most of the time, the grand jury will go along with the DA. As the saying goes a semi-competant DA can indict a ham sandwich.
3. If he thinks the case is weak and really wants an indictment, he may wait until he can build a stronger case. If the DA has enough evidence and doesn't believe that a crime was committed or the person shouldn't be tried, he can "steer" the grand jury towards a no-bill.
At least, that's my understanding of the system.