TexasCHLforum.com

If new evidence is available, then that new evidence should be presentable to the GJ. But what I think Chas. is speaking of (and I agree with him) are cases like the Saustrup(?) shooting, where the DA didn't have new evidence, but just kept re-convening GJs until he could get an indictment. Took him three tries, but he finally did it.

Since I have had the experience of having to appear before a Grand Jury after I shot and killed a subject who fired on me while I was a Police Officer, I'll relate what I was told at the time:

Since I was a City Officer, the shooting was initially investigated by the Sheriff's Department, then by a Texas Ranger, then by the FBI. Every step of the way indicated a totally justifiable shooting.

The DA explained that he would present the case to a Grand Jury to not only cover his butt, but mine as well. Less chance of the BG's family trying to say that Cops protect each other and might cover something up.

I did have to appear and testify. The entire scenario was re-enacted and all the evidence presented. One juror had a definite dislike for LEO, he asked a lot of very misguided questions and made a couple of really stupid comments.'

I was no billed as expected, but it was not an experience I would ever like to repeat again.

reposted my clarified question. Thanks.

If an individual is not indicted by the intial GJ is that point allowed to be mentioned at trial, (just curious) if later indicted by a different GJ. Wouldn't the absence of new evidence combined with the previous GJ decision be enough to creat a reasonable doubt at trial.