The Legend wrote:^^^ Here's the thing. All that I read of your account means things were in question. Is that a fair assessment? That things were unclear? If things were unclear then it is the role of a jury to decide those questions. The grand jury should have seen that it was enough to question what happened. The only time an indictment shouldn't be filed is when it is blatantly obvious that the person in question didn't commit a crime.
From wiki
To protect the suspect's due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect's interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial.
The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of where, when, and how the defendant allegedly committed the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate count. Indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, may run to hundreds of pages. However in other cases an indictment for a crime as serious as murder, may consist of a single sheet of paper.
in this case you have to remember that the offense in question is not the killing itself but if the officer killed without cause. The evidence is not clear enough to say yes or no and the grand jury is doing the same thing a judge would do prior to a case being heard, the only difference is the grand jury eliminates the courtroom, high priced lawyers, ect
