But you've seen this kind of process a few times. At least I have. In different states.
It's always been when the prosecutor found himself between Scylla and Charybdis. It's a diplomatic way out of a mess that he can't win no matter what he does.
If the accused goes to trial and is acquitted there'll be the kind of thing you saw with Zimmerman. Instead of recognizing that the case was too weak, the failure to convict at trial becomes a personal attack on the prosecutor. This, of course, after every word and every bit of evidence is discussed in real time on the nightly news, on Facebook and Instagram, on Twitter and blogs. Perhaps there'll be civil disturbances, perhaps not. (Even here we were assured there wouldn't be any, and there are still attempts to say that the protestors may have been demonstrating rage and hurling threats, but they were peaceful and wouldn't do anything without undercover agents starting the violence.)
But just taking the accused to trial when the prosecutor believes there's insufficient evidence is a violation of ethics. Moreover, it would be seen as an intensely political act: In the case of the Zimmerman trial, some are pleased that social activism forced the trial to take place. Some are convinced that more social activism would have forced a guilty verdict--sort of lynching by jury, where the truth is predecided and you make the jury return the verdict you believe they need to return.
But the prosecutor can't say, "No, I'm not going to take this to trial." Because that would create all kinds of problems.
Even having the prosecutor say, "I'm going to wait until the investigation concludes, which may take a couple of months" would lead to problems. The length of time between the killing and chucking it to grand jury led to all kinds of recriminations about coverups (with the best way to throw a trial being to rush things: Justice delayed is justice denied, but there's a S. Asian saying, Justice rushed is justice buried. Both ring true.) Moreover, every bit of forensic evidence was immediately demanded to be made public, in or out of context, and used to fuel a narrative.
So you can't wait for a full investigation, you can't bring charges, you can't not bring charges, you can't lose at trial, and you are convinced you can't win, and meanwhile everything's being fought not in court but in the press and in the social media. It's under such circumstances we've seen grand juries used in the same way. Note that this isn't often, because these conditions aren't all that common. (There was a more-or-less similar instance quite a while back in Arizona, one fraught with political implications. The (D) prosecutor handled it in exactly the same way to avoid charges that it was a political witch hunt against a (R) politician and not a bona fide legal case. The true bill of indictment returned was longer and much stronger than what the prosecutor had hinted they might return. One juror said the prosecutor seemed surprised at the time. Note that the politician's career was ended by a string of guilty verdicts at trial not long thereafter.)
Even the grand jury was the target of conspiracy theories. As though it were impaneled and then just left waiting for the planned execution of Mike Brown, in a completely corrupt manner. Such ill-will towards other citizens is unseemly, unless there's some actual evidence. (The evidence I've seen really begs the question. In other words, it's entirely circular.)
A grand jury, we were told about a decade ago, would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told it to. This, to my mind, was a obvious condemnation of the grand jury system, which should run more independently instead of being led like a docile calf with a ring through its nose. The grand jury system was to prevent prosecutorial misconduct and revenge prosecutions, it was a hobble to an all-powerful executive branch designed to preserve the civil liberties of the accused.
= new reply since forum marked as read
