McCulloch took the unusual step of presenting all possible evidence in the case to the grand jury, rather than just evidence that could establish probable cause for an indictment, as is often standard procedure in such proceedings. Legal experts have condemned this decision.
David Alan Sklansky, a professor at Stanford University Law School, told VICE News that he was troubled by McCulloch's public statements about the case, particularly the prosecutor's attempts to lay the lack of an indictment on the grand jury.
Prosecutors "rarely have trouble getting an indictment from a grand jury if they want an indictment," Sklansky said. "It is wrong to view the grand jury making a decision here unguided by the prosecutor. It's the prosecutor that has to decide how to present the case."
Sklansky added that he understands why people are now questioning the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.
"You want to have some assurances that the evidence was weighed carefully and impartially," he said. "I don't think [McCulloch's] comments reflect that it was. The prosecutor's office acted in ways that there are reasonable grounds for people to be concerned."