That doesn’t strike me as very remarkable. Getting an indictment is (usually) not that hard, because the standard is much lower than for a trial. But a DA would not be likely to seek an indictment unless he thought he had enough evidence to convict. Unless, as Steophan mentions, he wants to pressure a defendant into a guilty plea.
This case was different - the DA seemed aware that there was no chance of a conviction, so he showed that this was so at the grand jury hearing.
And I keep asking - what is the advantage of a trial for a defendant who isn’t going to be convicted? It is not to establish what the facts were - trials are not for that purpose. It is not to prove “guilt or innocence” - trials begin with a presumption of innocence, and only establish if the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We can be reasonably certain that, in this case, the prosecution could not have proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This was made clear at the grand jury, since not even probable cause was established.
A trial would not, and could not, do anything that the grand jury didn’t already do. Could Wilson have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No, because they couldn’t even be reasonably sure that a crime was committed.
Again - what is the advantage of trying a man without enough evidence to convict him?
Regards,
Shodan