That's just a complete BS statement. Were you in the jury room? Did you hear the evidence presented? A GJ is a group of fallible human beings. You have no clue what they based their decision on, so to say it's "more likely than not" that AJ committed a crime is total crap.
It's apparent that you have already found him guilty. By your own statement, any other verdict simply means the prosecution failed. It can't be that AJ might actually be innocent.
Now here's the truth. It's possible AJ did it. If he did, throw the book at him. Punish him as severely as the law allows, which I personally don't think is harsh enough. It's possible he did it and he'll get away with it, at least in this lifetime. If that's the case, we'll never know the truth, because it's also possible he's innocent. It's possible he and his accuser had consensual sex. It's possible she's falsely accusing him out of vindictiveness. The truth is, a myriad of possibilities about what might have happenned that night exist, but only those directly involved know what actually happenned. The truth is that the rest of us will never know with certainty what did happen.
You seem eager and quick to judge with no factual evidence at your disposal. The fact that you're a LEO scares me.
Your misunderstanding of the system seems to be the problem. So I will try to help to the best of my abilities. I wrote this in another post and it seems useful here too.
Here is my understanding of probable cause after over 20 years of experience in law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels.
Probable Cause is when a reasonable person is presented with the facts and circumstances regarding the alleged crime would conclude that it's more probable than not that a crime has been committed by the accused.
It is a strict legal standard that must be met before any arrest, search or seizure can occur. This is a requirement based upon the U.S. Constitution so all levels of law enforcement must adhere to this standard.
For the Grand Jury to indict they must conclude that probable causes exist that a crime was committed and who committed it. The Grand Jury is made up of common citizens who are considered to be reasonable. It does not consist of attorneys, prosecutors, or LEO's or Judges. There is a foreman who is appointed to lead them.
A law enforcement officer (LEO) can arrest someone without a warrant based solely upon probable cause. This is called a warrantless arrest and there is nothing a defense attorney can do to prevent this from happening, it's a fundamental concept of our justice system.
The arrest just like any Grand Jury indictment does NOT determine guilt, but rather that based on the facts and circumstances it is more probable than not that a crime has been committed by the person who was arrested.
However, most prosecutors prefer that a LEO not make a warrantless arrest and procede cautiously especially in high profile cases. Therefore, the prosecutor takes the case to a Grand Jury where it's the prosecutor's responsibility to present the facts and circumstances to the Grand Jury including any exculpatory evidence that may serve to exhonorate the defendant.
The Grand Jury is not intended to be a confrontational hearing but simply a fact finding event to determine probable cause. If the allegations are confirmed by the Grand Jury then the Forman returns a true bill for the indictment. Once the defendant is indicted for the crime an arrest warrant is issued and the defendant goes to jail where he is usually given a bond, and is released from jail while he awaits trial. The defendant is still presumed to be innocent until guilt is proven at trial or accepted by pleading guilty.
I hope this helps.
