Multiple choice, public poll
"Citizen's Direct Referral" means anyone may make a sworn criminal complaint and present evidence directly to a Grand Jury without DA permission. It would be up to the grand jury to decide if to consider or hear it.
In nearly all states, only the DA decides what cases to present to a grand jury and only the DA may present evidence and witnesses. As a result, it predictable there won't be an indictment if the DA doesn't want one - and likely will if the DA does.
Texas old constitution allowed anyone the right to make a complaint to and present evidence to a grand jury. This was done due to the extremely common corruption of Sheriffs (often owned by a wealth rancher or even a gang), wealthy landowners and corrupt politicians. Grand juries were picked by State District judges (not local judges) so were independent and had independent investigation power. If the grand jury foreman thought the complaint frivolous he could just ignore it, but the DA could not veto it either.
Now? The legal system seems totally self protective. No matter how corrupt and illegal the action, you can neither sue or prosecute a judge or prosecutor. No matter how much a prosecution witness or police perjure themselves against you, you can do nothing without the DA agreeing - and why would a DA prosecute their own witnesses?
Should Michael Brown's family been able to present evidence and witnesses to the grand jury? Their own experts findings? Or should it be entirely up the DA, who works for the same government as the police and has reasons to want no indictment to avoid a civil suit the DAs office then has to defend?
Should ANYONE be able to present a sworn complaint and evidence to a grand jury (if willing to hear it) OR on the prosecutor? Do you have any other changes to the Grand Jury and indictment system?