So far, nobody has shown why the grand jury was wrong. Just some opinions in articles or their own opinions. Grand juries consist of random people. In Texas it's likely there were a large percentage of Republicans on the random grand jury. They review evidence that most of us don't get to see, included some that may not get to be introduced in a trial. They indicted him. Probably because most people don't like the BS politicians use to justify the shit they do and that shows in a radom sample.
There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.
I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/
http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry
All I saw reading those were that a grand jury indicted him and that they thought the indictment shed no light on the evidence. Based on their opinion, reading Texas law, the indictment had little standing. However, I'm assuming the grand jury had access to evidence that could potentially come out to the general public at a later date, or may not be allowed in a trial for various reasons. So none of these "opinion pieces" over rides a grand jury indictment in my opinion. They saw enough evidence to move it to the next phase. That phase will determine how frivolous or not the charges are based on admissible evidence. No evidence, no problem for Perry. He's not guilty and we can start questioning how a grand jury would come to the conclusion they needed to indict him.