concerned, it is important to realize that the grand jury process is
completely a political tool to avoid political responsibility and
transparency.
Mike Freeman has not legal obligation to have a grand jury make the
decision. A grand jury is only required in Minnesota to charge cases of
first degree murder and certain career sex offender cases that carry
mandatory life imprisonment. This case does fit first degree murder
(premeditated or other inapplicable circumstances). It is as most a
second degree murder case if an officer intentionally shot Terrance
Franklin without justification. The county attorney almost never uses a
grand jury if he does not have to do so. It is a needless expenditure
of time and money. The office just makes its own decision. The only
exception is when a police officer is accused of criminal conduct, or
other rare politically sensitive cases where the county attorney wants
to avoid accountability for the decision whether to bring criminal charges.
The next thing to realize is that if a only grand jury "decides" not to
return an indictment (criminal charge) because the county attorney does
not want it to. In the secret grand jury proceedings, the county
attorney exclusively decides what testimony and evidence to present to
the grand jury. The oft-repeated saying/cliche in the field is "you can
indict a ham sandwich." The only time you hear about a grand jury not
returning an indictment is when the case involves a police officer. It
is just a convenient way for the county attorney to ownership of the
decision.
It is also a convenient way for the county attorney to avoid having to
explain his decision and keep the public in the dark. The other
politically convenient aspect of the grand jury is that the law requires
proceedings to be secret. The identity of the grand jurors is secret so
we don't get to hear from the people who decided not to indict why they
made the decision. Since the witnesses and evidence presented to the
grand jury is also secret (at least the county attorney is not allowed
to reveal it), Freeman can avoid disclosing what evidence he (or his
prosecutors) presented. He therefore gets to hide behind a legal wall
that he has chosen to erect.
The straightfoward, honest and open way to handle the matter would be
for Freeman to just decide himself whether or not to charge any police
officers (like he would do in any other case), share the evidence
developed and explain his interpretation. Members of the public could
then make their evaluations. Given the smoke-and-mirror approach of the
grand jury process, it is understandable and arguably justifiable to
conclude that the Feeman and the system are engaged in a cover-up. I
personally have not way of knowing what happened, and it is an open
question how much we can ever find out since the only witness other than
the cops is dead. However, thanks to Freeman, we don't get to find out
what there is to know.