Snipped from that article:
Although the officer was charged with manslaughter, the DA reminded people that the grand jury will have final say over what charges she will face.
“The grand jury will decide if the charges should be different,” she said during a news conference Monday morning. “Believe me, we will make sure justice is done in this case.”
Here is some reality, the DA decides what charge the grand jury will sign a True Bill for and if the DA doesn't want her indicted for a murder charge, that grand jury will not sign any such True Bill.
A grand jury only finds probable cause and most state's grand juries today are owned and controlled by the criminal court and the DA. In some states the court hand picks the grand Jury Foreman who IS NOT elected by those allegedly selected randomly from the pool from which the foreman does not have to be included, with there being no requirement that the pool must be randomly selected via automation.
Now this Foreman, in some states is a surrogate to the DA by statute and can vote at his discretion. Typically, 12 panel members are to decide and the foreman can be the 13th panelist unless prohibited.
He arguably has great influence over the panel.
All it takes on a grand jury is one no vote for there to be no true bill and examples of 'found not guilty' by a grand jury are becoming more common. For this to continue and get even worse, all it takes is for the people to keep believing these institutions work how they ideally imagine they should and never verify they're not even close.
This being found "not guilty" by a grand jury for those in elevated positions, or may have dirt on those elevated, should be viewed with healthy skeptism. Many DA's don't even record the sessions which leaves everyone impaneled, including the Foremen, gagged by secrecy laws.
The DA there can certainly influence a panel to indict her for Murder 1, or even a higher charge if it were to exists, if the DA wants that.
One aspect of grand jury service is IF you go against what the DA wants you may find yourself targeted for politically motivated abuse. Never believe that the secrecy laws prevent the foreman from giving the DA and presiding judge a full accounting or casting either a deciding or denying vote depending on the agenda.
Heck, many courts have held they have no problem with panelists sitting in when they know of the person under presentment and they can even have bias towards and hostility against, or favor for, those whose alleged crimes are being presented before them.
Also becoming more envogue and accepted is impaneling of government employees even those from praetorian sections like LEO employees or their immediate families.
In many states, it is my opinion, as is all herein, that grand and petite (trial) juries can be stacked easier than breathing.