re: So did jj kick the dude in the head?

quote:

---

Explain the verdict to me

---

1. There was no "verdict". This was not a trial.
2. The Grand Jury hears only the evidence that the prosecutor decides to give them. The defendant is not entitled to be present, either personally or through an attorney, or present any defense. The Grand Jury's only responsibility is to decide whether that evidence presented supports (presents "probable cause" for)an indictment on a criminal charge.
3. If an indictment is issued (in this case, for simple battery)the accused then gets a full trial.
4. Without being present to hear what evidence the Grand Jury heard (or did not hear)or what the prosecutor told them, it is impossible to know how they based their decision to indict on simple battery vs. 2nd degree battery.
5. The old adage is that any decent prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The bottom line: The prosecutor is in position to control the Grand Jury and get them to do whatever he wants, based on what evidence he chooses to present to them or hold back. Garbage In-Garbage Out. That's why prosecutors like to use the Grand Jury in highly charged public and political cases. They can do what they want and use the Grand Jury for cover.