I ran across something recently while looking for something else. It just struck me as, well... read it for yourselves and see what you think. Its a transcript of the Larry King show from March 30, 2000:
KING: (sbm) Greta Van Susteren, who was on our show -- you saw her on Tuesday night -- called in with a couple of questions. I'll relay them to you.
Under Colorado law, is it possible that a grand jury could indict and a prosecutor not file?
HUNTER: Yes, because there has to be -- there has to be joint action. So the prosecutor's to sign off.
KING: So you have to...
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: But you know, I'm not going -- and Greta knows this -- I'm not going to talk about what the grand jury did or didn't do.
KING: No, the question was only...
HUNTER: Yes.
KING: ... is it possible that they could indict and a district attorney says, it's not -- despite the fact...
HUNTER: The district attorney has got to sign it.
KING: Just as a judge could throw a case out.
HUNTER: Right.
Seems like Greta Van Susteren had some reason in 2000 to suspect what Hunter had done with the RGJs indictment. Hunter did his best to sidestep going into detail and actually answering the question. Hiding behind the cloak of GJ secrecy, he tried to say he couldnt talk about it, but he did finally answer the question as a generality that no one paid much attention to back when this was going on.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/30/lkl.00.html
otg,
Very nice find. Why does Hunter need to sidestep any questions he is the prosecuter? Note he was not being asked specifically about the JonBenet case, simply about procedure regarding true bill filing etc, I like how he generalises and says the DA has to sign it, i.e. asserting the positive but evading the actual question, was Hunter suggesting I need to sign it for no indictment?
.