Williams: For the defense?

Rose already posted this, but I'll break with my usual tradition and post it anyway since I'm a bit baffled by it:

Is it just me? I must be missing something because I still don't see how Gallegos convinced the Grand Jury to indict Douglas and Zanotti, despite the Grand Jury only getting arguments from the prosecution.

There's this latest gem reported in this morning's Times- Standard:

Gallegos called expert witness George Williams to testify during the proceedings. Williams, a police training specialist, called the case a “clear case of suicide by cop,” and went on to call the SWAT operation “extraordinarily” well handled.

In his concluding grand jury instructions, Gallegos tears apart Williams credentials as an expert, and essentially asks the grand jury to disregard the expert witness' testimony.

What? So Gallegos own expert witness says the Moore operation was "extraordinarily well handled"?

I don't know that many of us, including law enforcement, think the situation was handled extraordinarily well. We're just saying things could have been handled better- perhaps much better- but, regardless, it didn't amount to criminally negligent manslaughter.

What really gets me, though, is Gallegos part in this and how he handles it during the Grand Jury proceedings.

I've heard that one rule lawyers go by is to never call a witness to the stand unless you know just how he or she is going to testify. If Gallegos considers the guy an expert witness and calls him to the stand, I'm assuming he knew what the guy was going to say.

Taking it further, I would expect that he considered this expert's testimony held some weight, otherwise he wouldn't have used him as an expert witness. Since the expert witness seems to believe the police handled the job well, wouldn't that lead Gallegos to absolve Douglas and Zanotti before bringing this before the GJ in the first place?

But, no, he just lets the expert witness testify on behalf of the police and then, to make things look even goofier, ends having to discrediting his expert witness in front of the GJ to try and save his case. That's nutty. Why bother having him testify in the first place if you're going to have to do a 180 and discredit him?

Hey, I think I've been pretty objective with Gallegos, at least I've tried to be since he became D.A., but more and more I thinking there's something seriously wrong with his judgment and job expertise.

I'm wondering just how much goofier this Dave Gunderson rape case will look after it gets a little more exposure in court?