It's interesting the way people think when prosecutors are presenting cases against cops to a grand jury, they're meant to present all the evidence good and bad.
I promise you this is *not* what they do when they present against ordinary people. They try to get an indictment.
I promise you this is *not* what they do when they present against ordinary people. They try to get an indictment.
The only duty a prosecutor has is not to mislead a grand jury and to present what would be described as exculpatory evidence. For instance, if a defendant had a credible alibi a prosecutor would have to inform the grand jury.
But presenting a state witness who argues that the defendant was justified in killing someone, no. Absolutely not. Never ever.
If a defendant testifies before the grand jury and argues that they were justified in killing someone, then their lawyer can request the prosecutor charge the grand jury as to the defense of justification, but you have no way of knowing whether they did.
Because you have to ask outside the presence of the grand jury (a defense lawyer accompanies their client into the grand jury when they testify but literally can say nothing, not object, nothing) so the request is made to the prosecutor outside the grand jury's presence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
