Second, it is well settled that a grand jury has the authority to indict independently from or in the absence of any previous preliminary proceedings in the District Court. Burke v. Langlois, 104 R.I. 391, 397, 244 A.2d 593, 597 (1968). Thus, the defendant's waiver of a jury trial in District Court has no effect on either the grand jury's authority to return an indictment or on the transfer of a misdemeanor charge from the District to the Superior Court.
A Grand Jury may indict independent from or in the absence of any prior examination in the District Court. State v. Conti, 110 R.I. 237, 291 A.2d 623 (1972); Burke v. Langlois, 104 R.I. 391, 244 A.2d 593 (1968); State v. Robbins, 42 R.I. 213, 106 A.2d 291 (1919). Supreme Court has also said that a finding of no probable cause in the District Court will not deprive the Grand Jury of its jurisdiction.
Section 12-10-5 limits District Court jurisdiction of felonies to discharging a defendant if he is found not probably guilty and, if he is found probably guilty, § 12-10-6, as amended, limits that court's jurisdiction to binding him over. In Burke v. Langlois, 104 R.I. 391, 397, 244 A.2d 593, 597 (1968), we held that a grand jury can indict independent from or in the absence of any previous examination in the District Court and in Brady v. Langlois, 104 R.I. 301, 309, 243 A.2d 906, 910 (1968), we said that even a finding of not probably guilty in District Court would not deprive the grand jury of jurisdiction. See also State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 285 A.2d 783 (1972).
"Under the circumstances counsel's decision to minimize jury exposure to this evidence appears to have been wise," Ibid. Likewise, in the instant case, Attorney Suddaby's decision minimized the jury's exposure to the details of the alleged sexual contact. Examples of other habeas corpus cases which have recognized that not objecting to the admission of possibly inadmissible or illegally obtained evidence is not, per se, a manifestation of negligence or incompetence but rather the exercise of sound discretion and prudent trial strategy are U.S. v. Stephens, 609 F.2d 230 (CA5 1980), pp. 232 and 233; CT Page 6219-ff Cornitcher v. Rundle, 285 F. Sup. 625 (E.D. Pa. 1968), p. 627; and Burke v. Langlois, 244 A.2d 593 (R.I. 1968), p. 597. A very instructive case in this area is Lovett v. Foltz, 687 F. Sup. 1126 (E.D. Mich. 1988).