I did not see the evidence presented to the Grand Jury but I am quite aware that any good attorney can to use a very famous quote indict a ham sandwich. By only presenting some of the evidence and not presenting enough evidence certainly the grand jury can come back with no true bill but that does not mean there was not enough evidence to indictr only that a prosecutor choose the evidence presented to avoid an indictment. Is this the case here I surely do not know. But I do know the agents did not follow standard procedure for the stop and a young man was severely injured. Such situations call for a petit jury trial.
Understood. Since I wasn't there however, I was trying to avoid assuming that the prosecutor sabotaged the grand jury proceedings.
Judging by what I read in the papers, Mr. Braga, at minimum, should have been charged with negligent discharge of a firearm. Given the running argument with OTA, I just wanted to back out though.
Can't be everywhere and know everything and just have to let things go sometimes. The grand jury should have had access to the same newspaper stories we did. Can't explain how they failed to charge that thug with SOMETHING, but the fact is, they didn't charge him.
Just have to make a note of Mr. Braga's name and wait.
I agree with you. If the situation resulted in an indictment it surely would call for a petit jury trial. But..................