General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]Bernardo de La Paz
(49,010 posts)Racially segregated facilities are almost entirely non-existent now because the law was changed, not because the law was ignored.
However, the famous saying is "a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich". But any prosecutor who wastes judicial and jurisprudence resources bringing bogus indictments will have a short career. Police malfeasance is a separate issue, except where they collude with the prosecutor, but going that far is much rarer than simple police malfeasance.
To state that prosecutors can use a grand jury to get any charges they like "unchallenged" is false. The charges will be challenged. If they collapse, it might not harm the prosecutor's career if it happens once, but more than that the District Attorney will take an interest and end up firing the prosecutor.
The fact that a grand jury is not adversarial means that the testimony is protected: not made public so that unfounded baseless accusations do not damage reputations. The testimony is reviewed by the prosecutor and the jury, so it is not simply accepted blankly.
The prosecutor can't "imprison anyone they like" (or don't like). To get sent to prison such as the OP's subject, several criteria have to all be satisfied: 1) There must be an offense that needs investigation. 2) A grand jury has to be properly and legally constituted. 3) The prosecutor has to convince enough jurors to issue a subpoena. 4) The subpoena has to be refused by the witness subpoenaed. 5) There may be a round of negotiation where immunity is offered to the witness. 6) The prosecutor has bring the issue before a judge. 7) The prosecutor has to convince the judge that there is no possibility of self-incrimination or offer immunity to the witness. 8) The judge has to issue a contempt citation. 9) The witness has to again refuse to testify.