Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation the charge is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, never in this country has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

In contrast, Robert Sand allowed Kyle Bolaski to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his explanation Robert Sand said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony established that Kyle Bolaski was acting in self-defense. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Kyle Bolaski.

Comparing Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to how and why Robert Sand held the Grand Jury shows a complete contradiction of what the Grand jury is used for.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Bolaski's testimony, was only included by Robert Sand by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts and physical evidence that strongly suggested Bolaski did not act in self-defense. Robert Sand could have, and should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment. "It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments." (JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA)

But Robert Sand chose a different path. His use, or rather misuse, of the Grand Jury showed his apparent want of exonerating Kyle Bolaski.

His path of deception included suborned, perjured testimony, deception and assisting, even leading the accused in his false testimony. Robert Sand also showed an obvious bias toward the victim, by orchestrating and allowing a complete character assassination of the victim. This is uncharacteristic of a prosecutor unless his agenda is contrary to his obligation, which was apparent in Robert Sands actions.

There is no way to hide what he has done. There is no way he can talk his way out of what he's done. Robert Sand violated the rules governing the Grand Jury...Period! And he was told to do so by Attorney General Sorrell. As he said "I have consulted with the Attorney General regarding this case...!" AG Sorrell knows they violated the law. Otherwise why would they try to distance themselves from what Robert Sand has done? According to Assistant Attorney General Cindy Maguire..."We have never spoken with Robert Sand about this case!" Then she admitted she lied. These are the people running the state of Vermont! God help the people of Vermont.