Not even close. You have to remember that Muttly doesn't really understand the process and he's just Googling for stuff that fits what he believes. As the article he linked to states at the top, "Prosecutors use grand juries to indict people, not to clear them of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, they sometimes have to present evidence suggesting innocence."
The key there is "sometimes," and it's rather rare. The paragraph headings of "Minority Approach: No Duty to Help the Defendant" and "Majority View: Exculpatory Evidence is a Must" are not how it's done in a minority and majority of the states or cases, but "Minority Approach" and "Majority View" are legal philosophies having nothing to do with actual numbers or ratios.
A prosecutor can't knowingly prosecute or call for an indictment of someone whom the prosecutor knows to be innocent. That's true in every state. It's prosecutorial misconduct if that happens. But the key there is, as is also stated in that article, the exculpatory evidence must be strong, credible evidence of innocence. Not just evidence that casts doubt or tends to indicate evidence, but rather something that's a no-doubter, or, as the it is used in law, "substantial exculpatory evidence." Of course, in the case of no-doubt innocence, the case wouldn't be presented to the grand jury in the first place.
The article says "in many states" the prosecutor must present evidence to the grand jury that is helpful to the accused. "Many" is rather vague, but what it actually refers to are the states that have something called Grand Jury Presentment, where the grand jury can make certain requests, including requesting that a particular case be presented to them even if the prosecutor hadn't planned on it, and in states where the pretrial hearing process is sometimes held prior to the grand jury proceeding. If Presentment doesn't happen, or there is not a pretrial hearing prior to the grand jury hearing the case, then exculpatory evidence doesn't need to be presented. The prosecution must present exculpatory evidence at a pretrial hearing, and he must also present all pretrial evidence to a grand jury, so it would include the exculpatory evidence. The reason for that is, if the pretrial hearing doesn't result in charges being filed, because the judge doesn't think there is probable cause, the prosecutor can't then go to the grand jury and present half a case to get his indictment. (it's the same as putting down that you have injectable insulin diabetes on your long form at DOT physical and getting disqualified, and then going to another doctor and failing to mention you have diabetes in order to get your medical card)
That article, incidentally, was written by a criminal defense attorney who thinks everyone is innocent and everything humanly possible should be done in their favor during the entire criminal prosecution process. She co-authored the famous Gitmo report which recommended against military tribunals and that all Gitmo prisoners either be immediately be charged and tried in a stateside US criminal court, or summarily released.
The thing is, there are no state laws that I've ever been able to find, other than the State Bar's Rules of Ethics that deals with substantial evidence, that say a prosecutor must present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. I sat on one for 4 months and learned that very thing.
But to address any doubt about this issue, there are two US Supreme Court decisions that address this very issue specifically and explicitly (actually, there are several, but most of them only address, and are applicable in, federal court). One is United States v. Page, 1987, which held that the evidence withheld from the grand jury must be substantial and "clearly exculpatory" for there to be cause to overturn an indictment. But even then, if the exculpatory evidence came out at trial, it wouldn't be cause to overturn the indictment, regardless of the trial verdict.
And the other is the 6-3 decision of United States v. Williams, 1992, unambiguously found the lower court (in this case a US district court) "may not dismiss an otherwise valid indictment because the Government failed to disclose to the grand jury "substantial exculpatory evidence" in its possession. Pp. 9-19."
Also, the lower court's "rule would neither preserve nor enhance the traditional functioning of the grand jury that the "common law" of the Fifth Amendment demands. To the contrary, requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence. Moreover, motions to quash indictments based upon the sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by the grand jury have never been allowed, and it would make little sense to abstain from reviewing the evidentiary support for the grand jury's judgment while scrutinizing the sufficiency of the prosecutor's presentation."
Further, Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion of US v. Williams:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented." {bold emphasis mine}
So, basically, the court ruled that the prosecutor did not fail to present what was categorized as "substantial exculpatory evidence" and moreover he really didn't have to regardless. The 3 dissenting justices, Stevens, Blackmun and O'Connor, felt the evidence withheld by the prosecutor met the threshold of "substantial" and therefore should have been presented to the grand jury.
So no, not checkmate, not at all. I swear some of you people think I just make this stuff up and that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Incidentally, in reading what Scalia and the ruling says about the role of the grand jury, it's very, very interesting to see what McCulloch told the grand jury in the Ferguson case by comparison:
"And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence."
Holy crap.
