When a prosecutor presents exculpatory evidence; a theory of the defence to the grand jury, how can it be said that he is presenting evidence to secure an indictment? When a prosecutor does that AND fails to argue that a charge/trial is required on the evidence, how can it be said that he is doing anything except trying the case in the absence of a judge; in the absence of any sort of critical advocacy, and is blatantly using the grand jury to wash his hands of the decision to bring no charge? In view of the evidence, this is gross negligence on its face. Commonly, prosecutorial misconduct is aimed at gaining a conviction. Here, it was plainly brought to bear on avoiding a trial. If America is a country of laws, then America is broken.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 01:24:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015