I have no idea why you would write that I am “such as [sic] staunch supporter of Robinson's views on the case.” You brought him up, you quoted him. I simply showed what else he had to say and showed that he doesn’t seem to be supporting your position at all.<quoted text>
A few things to clear up.
You do understand that a District Attorney does not have the authority to indict anyone do you not?
An indictment can only be decided by a Grand Jury, is this something that you understand?
The Grand Jury must vote on specific charges in order to indict, is this something that you comprehend?
The Ramsey Grand Jury VOTED to indict the Ramseys on the charge of Child Abuse resulting in death, is this something that you acknowledge?
Scott Robinson (and Ramsey defender) called Hunter's action of not filing the charges "unprecedented" because this had not happened in Colorado before, are you aware of that?
Mimi Wesson is a constitutional law scholar and law professor --unlike Robinson who is a criminal defense attorney--at the University of Colorado, is this something that you acknowledge?
Since you are not surprisingly such as staunch supporter of Robinson's views on the case, what do you think he means when he writes that Huner essentially used a "pocket veto" even though this power is given to a President and not a prosecutor?
Let's review one more time. ONLY a Grand Jury has the authority to indict. The prosecutor, judge, clerk, or any other Officer of the court has NO RIGHT, POWER or AUTHORITY to INDICT. A grand Jury is empanelled to investigate and report findings and or indict (which can only be accomplished by voting) since the Grand Jury in this case investigated for thirteen months and concluded by voting for an indictment on child abuse leading to death, they fullfilled their obligations under Colorado State Law. Hunter's violation of law does not change the fact that Ramseys were INDICTED.
Maybe one example will help, if a Police Officer observes a perpetrator commiting a crime and arrests that person, and then then that person's arrest does not get processed because he or she escaped en route to the Police Station, it does not invalidate the arrest that took place nor does it factually or substantively CHANGE the fact that the person was arrested.
So AK your demand that we write the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys instead the Ramseys were indicted is tantamount to saying the Police Officer decided to arrest, instead of saying that the perpetrator was arrested. In the examples there was an indictment and an arrest. In the real example and hypothetical example the perpetrators escaped albeit in different ways.
Since you brought up the term, let’s just go with it: Hunter vetoed the grand juror’s decision. That means that he stopped it; he overrode the decision (vote); no indictment.
It really, really is that simple. The grand jury voted to indict, Hunter vetoed that decision, hence no indictment.