ABSTRACT
The circuit court found that the reasons did not meet the constitutional requirement that preliminary hearings be allowed "upon the same terms" to similarly situated citizens under the principles of State v. Clark and State v. Edmonson. Because Clark and Edmonson only rejected an attack on the dual system of felony prosecution as inherently unequal, holding that the system could withstand this attack if administered to provide equal privileges to persons similarly situated, those decisions could offer little guidance. The Court of Appeals reversed because it thought that we required such a motive for improper discrimination, although it conceded that the circuit court's reading of Clark and Edmonson might be correct. Clark and Edmonson rejected such a claim on the assumption that it is possible to administer the dual charging system so as to provide equal treatment for persons similarly situated.
