Cited by

Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 627

¶ 14 (2003) (holding misleading testimony at a grand jury indictment and the prosecutor’s interference necessitated a remand for a redetermination of probable cause); see also United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 785 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[I]f the prosecutor had brought the perjury to the court’s attention before

Hansen argued the state had not presented the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and had prevented the grand jury from acting independently.

Such a result would be contrary to the essential purpose of the grand jury, which is to stand as a neutral intermediary “between the accuser and the accused.” ¶ 8, (quoting Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390 (1962)) (internal quotations omitted); see also Mikels, 119 Ariz. at 563, (describing “very purpose” of requiring indictment by a grand jury is “to eliminate [a defendant’s] jeopardy to offenses charged by a group of his fellow

¶3 A prosecutor must provide a grand jury with “a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence.” ¶ 8

¶ 16, (applying harmless error analysis to the issue of presentation of inaccurate information to a grand jury); -99, ¶ 15, -25 (2003) (same).

or complaint is insufficient as a matter of law.” We rejected the defendant’s argument in Young that Rule 16.6(b) allows dismissal based on irregularities in grand jury proceedings and held instead that Rule 12.9 “specifically provides the only procedural method for challenging grand jury proceedings in Arizona.” 149 Ariz. at 587 , 720 P.2d at 972 (emphasis in original); ¶ 20 , (Rule 12.9 motion is proper method of raising due-process challenge to use of misleading testimony in grand jury procee

¶ 20 , (holding defendant's "right to due process was violated by the *203 detective's misleading testimony, coupled with the prosecutor's interference with the grand jury's independence and his failure to instruct the jury regarding the pertinent law.").

¶ 19, New Jersey v. Torres, 744 A.2d 699, 708 (N.J.