I think the grand jury rule it an accidental discharge (because it’s Texas) and it’s how you kill somebody without being held accountable

The grand jury is an extension of the district attorney’s office. When a crime is suspected of being committed, the district attorney brings the evidence to a grand jury. Then the grand jury decides if the case can proceed to trial. It’s basically step 0 in the judicial process.

The prosecutor has a lot of discretion in what evidence the grand jury sees. They can do things like include evidence that they know won’t stand up in court, or intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence (that would prove the suspect’s innocence). Additionally, there is no defense attorney at the grand jury. Nobody has been charged with a crime yet, so the suspect can’t even defend themselves. The old joke among defense attorneys is that the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the DA wanted them to.

The point of the grand jury is for the prosecutor to go “do I have enough evidence to go to trial?” They’re not deciding guilt. They’re just deciding if it’s even worth trying to prosecute a suspect. So the threshold for evidence is very low. On paper, the grand jury is meant to prevent frivolous charges and protect clearly innocent suspects. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to go to trial, then the suspect is officially charged with a crime and the entire arrest+trial part of the prosecution kicks off.

But in reality, it is often just used as a scapegoat by the district attorney. The grand jury is anonymous, which makes them very convenient as a scapegoat. As far as the public is concerned, the grand jury is just a sort of massless, faceless blob. The DA is typically an elected position, which means they need to keep the public’s wants in mind. And this can come into conflict with the job, when they have a politically inconvenient case.

For example, let’s say a cop kills someone in broad daylight, surrounded by bystander recordings. The public is out for blood. But the police union has privately told the DA that if charges get pressed, the cops will collectively stop cooperating as witnesses and won’t collect evidence at crime scenes. Functionally making the DA’s job impossible.

So the DA uses the grand jury as a scapegoat. They refuse to bring any evidence (because again, they can choose to exclude evidence), and then the grand jury refuses to indict because they were given no evidence. Then the DA jumps in front of the news cameras and goes “I tried my best, and I brought the case to the grand jury! But the big mean grand jury refused to indict! Remember that I’m fighting for you. Vote for me!” And the grand jury (as a faceless blob) can’t defend themselves and go “hey uhh, we would have indicted that cop if the DA brought any evidence…”

To be fair you only really need one.

Ah, I see part of the issue. OP is a butt for removing the familial link in their title. The BBC headline is more accurate.

And I just saw this.... https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2675269942/

That's what makes Putin very, very happy.