Tribe & Starr on FNS ____
"This week on FOX News Sunday we discussed the President’s ongoing court battle over the election results with two experts in constitutional law, Professor Laurence Tribe & Judge Ken Starr. Does the President have a case? Watch their analysis here."
[facebook.com]

The result of a trial in a Court of Law (common law) will be Trial Transcripts.

The jury is assembled so as to represent The People as ONE WHOLE. The reasoning behind this is to use human experience to guide people toward an unbiased adjudication of justice in any case of controversy, at least within the boundaries of reality.

Who says?

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury."

U.S. Supreme Court
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

That could be made clearer, and I will attempt to do so.

A controversy exists (someone accused someone of vote fraud) and the accusation itself is evidence provided by the accuser as the accuser moves the accusation to a member of the common law system.

Who receives and validates the accusation?

The independent grand jury receives and validates the accusation, so there is so far no need to employ anyone in government, per se, at this point.

The grand jury uses all legal power (jurisdiction) civil and criminal to validate the evidence that includes the witness testimony arriving in the form of an accusation, and the accusation can be verbal, it does not have to be written, because some people can't write, and they are as legally franchised to accuse bad people of bad things, so to disenfranchise someone, because they can't read, would help (aid and abet) bad people to run amok in the playground.

If only "experts" were allowed access to the law, it would not be the common law, it would be the law enforced by "experts" and they lie. Their minds, as a rule, are warped by obvious bias, such as the biases that grow as governments are turned into despotic ones, turned by "experts."