Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I served on one.
There's a lower standard for your verdict: "on this evidence, could a reasonable person believe a crime might have been committed." So, by that standard, we would always vote yes (as I now read grand juries from around the country routinely do). That annoyed me for a while. But then I came to the conclusion, represented in Bamspeedy's quote, that the grand jury was doing its job, not through its judgments, but just through its existing at all. Yeah, prosecutors only bother to bring the cases that they know are going to meet that standard. I concluded that it was a valuable service, not in judging the individual cases, but in generally keeping law enforcement from going after people on insufficient evidence, trumped-up charges, etc.
So I've not been able to imagine how the Ferguson grand jury won't indict. It may well be that the prosecutor would love to get his police officer buddy off the hook. And I don't sell lawyers short in being able to sway juries by how they frame the evidence. And I never had a case remotely like this, so I don't know what law will be read to them regarding any special exemptions for police officers; that could make a difference. But to present evidence at all, which is what the prosecutors do here, is to present evidence that there is evidence (if that makes any sense), and since that's all grand juries are really passing on, again, I don't see how there won't be an indictment.
How do the 1% of cases that the grand jury refuses to indict happen? How did the grand jury refuse to indict the nascar driver who ran over his opponent? (I always thought that case was because the prosecutor didn't want to take the case until I was googling and found out it was the grand jury who decided not to move the case forward).