Thanks,
Can you specify what you meant by "potentially outstanding suspects or witnesses"?
Let's say we know how a crime was committed, but we don't have all the suspects in custody or witnesses located. If we have at least one in custody, but we don't want the defense to know our theory of the case just yet because the outstanding suspect (and any unidentified witnesses) might be able to conceal evidence, remain in hiding, or intimidate witnesses before we catch them, then we might go to a GJ where the evidence and the theory of the crime can remain a secret.
We're working such a case right now where we might consider going to the grand jury because we have an outstanding "person of interest" ... fortunately, we probably won't have to because our main suspect in the shooting decided to do himself in thus saving us the trouble of making that call.
I would just assume that if there was a significant amount of evidence, they would use a grand jury to indict.
Not necessarily. Going to a preliminary hearing and overwhelming the defense with a mountain of incriminating evidence is a good way to compel a deal.
None the less, from what I have heard so far, it seems that they are using the grand jury to force an arrest for publicity reasons. What I mean by that is, the victims family are really pressing on for an arrest. Maybe I am just looking at it all wrong.
Well, if it is a case of public significance, and there is a lack of hard evidence, the DA may decide to get the monkey off his back and pass the responsibility to a grand jury. that way, if the GJ indicts, he is absolved responsibility ... likewise if they fail to indict. if they fail to indict he can argue that it's not his fault and that the evidence was just too weak so far.
Without knowing the case it is impossible to speculate WHAT the motivation might be to go to a grand jury. But, in CA going to a GJ is extremely rare, and often political.
- Carl