I'm here about the title.

The local jury

Grand jury.

He was immediately released

Yes, that's how this works.

Now, bear in mind, I'm only here about the part of this from the title that I quoted. For anyone outraged by that part, no.

The way this works:

1. A matter is put before a grand jury. Only evidence submitted is by the prosecutor. Nothing from the defense. The standard of evidence is "probable cause", which is a very very low standard. Basically, unless someone screwed something up massively, there will almost always be sufficient probable cause for a case to go forward.

2. If probable cause is indeed found, the case will proceed. It may eventually have a trial by jury, where both sides present their case and a jury decides - for civil matters the standard is preponderance of the evidence (i.e. majority of evidence seems guilty or not), for criminal it's beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it seems pretty clear and any evidence that is against seems unlikely.

So speaking generally, when indictment in front of a grand jury fails, it means one of something like these happened:

1. Fundamental evidence failed "probable cause". For example, say it resulted from a traffic stop, but it was found that the traffic stop had no legal justification. Because of "fruit of the forbidden tree", it might be entirely thrown out
2. Perhaps the prosecutors failed to get their shit together on evidence
3. Perhaps, as is theorized by some in this case, the prosecutor felt they had to present the case, but threw it on purpose, sort of like a prosecutorial nullification, if you will

So again, not talking about the case (I've discussed/debated in other threads - this is not a new story), just the parts of the title that make it clear OP doesn't understand the difference between a jury and a grand jury. :)