I realize that the original criminal case would not be appealed if won.
I meant a scenario where a person won his criminal case and then sued the State that prosecuted him… Has one of those lawsuits ever made it to SCOTUS : where presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury was considered as a guarantee against undue loss of liberty or property by the accused during the "process"?
I realize that there are some checks on overzealous prosecutors in the various State legal systems and believe that abuses are very rare … except in cases of high political pressure. I also concede that a Grand Jury is not a magic bullet to guarantee that no abuses occur in holding a person to answer for a crime.
IMO, a Grand Jury does serve better as insulation from political pressure (both by an authoritarian govt. and from a govt. bending to popular pressure … the two greatest enemies of the rule of law, IMHO). What I am searching for is the specific logic in SCOTUS’s refusal to recognize an element of due process (which is specifically mentioned in the 5th Amendment) as one of the privileges in the 14th Amendment.
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...