I'm going to try one more time. There was always going to be either a grand jury hearing or a preliminary hearing heard by a single judge. There was always going to be some evaluation of the evidence to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to take the matter to trial. No case ever goes straight to trial without a formal indictment by someone. Did you think that this would have gone right to trial? That was never going to happen.There is no such thing as a cross examination at a grand jury proceeding. The jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Cross examination is both unnecessary and illegal. The sole function of the grand jury is to determine if there is evidence no matter how slight to hold the accused over for trial.Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.
Some juisdictions don't use a grand jury proceeding. The determination is done in a courtroom by a judge in a proceeding called a preliminary hearing. There is no cross examination allowed there either.
The GJ was exploited as a means to avoid a jury trial. Had there been a genuine trial that testimony would have been subject to cross examination. That was a political move by the prosecutor to defeat the ends of justice in my opinion.
Benjamin Crump, lawyer for the family demanded a grand jury so that a determination would be made by 12 people instead of a single judge. The prosecutor didn't ask for the grand jury. The family and advisors did. They felt certain that there was enough question to get a trial and 12 people would agree.
The evidence supporting Wilson was so overwhelming that the threshold of probable cause could not be met.