Court Opinion

ID: 9623025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:26:46.11347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:22.420418
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurs in the result):
I concur in the result, for the following reasons:
Irrespective of the gravity of the charge and the position of the prosecution that there was no irregularity in the grand jury procedure, it is conceded that 1) after a plenary hearing at a preliminary examination, and without objection of any kind, the state presented or had the opportunity to present all the evidence it had at its command, and having done so, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence;1 that thereafter, 2) the prosecution, obviously unhappy with such exoneration, sought a second go at it by seeking out the grand jury, which happened to be in session, in an effort to succeed where before it had failed,2 and in doing so 3) induced an indictment, whose interdictional soundness appeared to be highly debatable and in this author’s opinion, quite lacking in full adherence to grand jury statutory and procedural practice.

. At that juncture, in almost every instance it is a fact that defense lawyers traditionally and with good reason consider the matter to be closed once and for all.

. Suggesting no recognition of a principle, not exactly the same, but something akin to the constitutional double jeopardy concept.