But in the past it wasn't necessary because, as the saying went, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The bar to indictment is incredibly low. So, it's actually extremely embarrassing to have the media talking about how you keep trying and failing.

Edit: I should have said it was rarely necessary.

They generally don't though because the burden to indict is SIGNFICANTLY lower than the burden to convict. Anyone that you cannot even get an indictment for isn't likely to be convicted at trial.

When they wanted to prosecute the guy who threw a sub sandwich at the ICE agent, the Grand Jury shot them down twice. So they altered the charges so they didn't require a grand jury to go to court.

In court, the ICE agent whined about how he had PTSD, since the sandwich burst open on his uniform, and smeared mustard and onions all over it, which he had to smell all day, causing massive psychological harm.

The defense introduced a photograph of the sandwich, laying in the road, AFTER the throw, and it was still tightly wrapped. It hadn't burst open, no mustard or onions were smeared. The ICE agents entire testimony was a straight up lie. The jury found the sandwich thrower Not Guilty.

So I suspect that their next move will be to adjust the charges to bypass the Grand Jury.

I think it's so rare because grand juries have an insanely high indictment rate. They typically don't convene them unless they know for certain that they'll indict. Which is why it was so rare up until the current administration.

It makes sense though. It’s not an actual trial, just a test to see if the prosecution has strong enough evidence to support an indictment. If not, they keep digging.