Yes, I know that is the purpose of the GJ

and that the DA uses it as a tool to arrive at decisions he wants

what I am pointing out

is in this 1 case

the 1 that we have the GJ testimony

we see the DA using, as evidence, a statute that the supreme court has ruled unconstitutional

(to point out that the valid statute was later introduced is very condescending)

the fact that we don't have the testimony from EVERY GJ

and don't know how many times the DA has used evidence he KNOWS to be false

is what I'm talking about

you missed me with the rest of what you typed.