as it was explained to methe old statute was initially presented, during the beginning of the grand jury sessionsand it wasn't until the very end of the sessions that the valid statute was introducedand there was no explanation to the grand jury about the difference between the two, they were expected to figure that outalso, I'm asking, in this being the 1 case where the grand jury session is made publicand we see the DA using statutes he knows are invalidas you alluded to, in order to reach a conclusion he wantswe have no idea how many times he's done that beforein general, in all cases, whether it's to indict or nothow many times has the DA manipulated the GJ like this?
---------------------------------------------------------------If you can't understand it without an explanationyou can't understand it with an explanation