1977-NMSC-067, ¶ 6, 90 N.M. 667, 568 P.2d 193 (“[Statutes governing grand jury proceedings [are] to be rigorously observed and strictly enforced.”); see also Davis v. Traub, 1977-NMSC-049, ¶ 5, 90 N.M. 498, 565 P.2d 1015 (per curiam) (explaining that this Court “will not permit anyone to circumvent the letter or the spirit” of the laws that enable the grand jury to guard “the citizens’ right to be free from government harassment”). {16} While the prosecuting attorney plays a central role in the grand jury process, the target’s participation is confined to testifying, if the target chooses to do so, see § 31-6-ll(C)(3)-(5), and to asking the prosecuting attorney to alert the grand jury to exculpatory evidence and possible defenses, see § 31 -6-11 (B). Grand , 98 N.M. 732, 652 P.2d 754 (<HOLDING>). Our courts presume prejudice in such cases
holding that a sixtyfive second gap in the audio recording of the grand jury proceedings which was caused by an equipment malfunction did not justify application of the per se prejudice rule holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury recognizing that the only record of grand jury testimony is the court reporters certified transcript not her tape recording of the proceeding holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings