BroadwayJay*
Guest
Can you think of any procedural reason why a DA might want to go to a grand jury before any arrest, broadway? With my limited legal knowledge, I can only really think of three circumstances:
1) Part of a larger criminal investigation, i.e. sorting out multiple potential indictees,
2) Crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's before formally arraigning a suspect, either as a fact-checking process or to avoid at least one stage of an obvious media circus, or
3) Wanting to pass the buck on not proceeding with a prosecution by saying that the grand jury determined there wasn't sufficient evidence while not arresting Kane and avoiding that whole media storm.
And to be clear, I am not an attorney. My main perspective on this has always been from the political sphere. My views tend to be more on how the prosecution would want to proceed with a case or not proceed in the best PR light.
I'm on my phone in bed here so forgive my brevity.
1) no. Has no impact on the other possible defendants.
2) maybe, but that's not really a question for a lawyer. Typically they don't leave people they think are felon rapists out on the street. If politically a DA thinks it is worth the risk, I suppose it can happen.
3) certainty makes sense right? It is highly uncommon to put a case on the grand jury prior to an arrest