The decision by an Oahu grand jury against indicting three Honolulu police officers in the shooting death of a teen on Kalakaua Avenue certainly strengthens the argument that police were not criminally liable for the killing.

But until evidence and the proceedings of the case are made public, neither does it answer questions about the way this incident played out. Nor does it dismiss the perception that policing in such high-tension cases could be reformed.

That is why calls for disclosure of police body-camera footage and other evidence have not died down. On April 5, 16-year-old Iremamber Sykap was killed in a shootout after a crime spree culminated in a police car chase.

On Wednesday the jurors declined the indictment, a rare occurrence in cases where evidence is presented by a city prosecutor, to determine if they advance to trial.

It was a controversial case, in which some found the police actions defensible. Officers reported spotting what they believed to be a gun in the car, a weapon later found to be a replica. Sykap was driving a stolen Honda linked to an earlier armed robbery, burglary, purse snatching and car theft.

But other opinions emerged after some of the officers’ camera clips had circulated, showing multiple rounds fired at the car after it had stopped in a ditch.

Sykap’s family has filed a wrongful death civil suit against the city and the officers, but in the criminal court the decision has been made.

Still undecided: whether police could do better going forward. That only becomes clear when the public served by the Honolulu Police Department has the facts as presented to the grand jury.

The city Department of the Prosecuting Attorney had no comment other than that the office is reviewing the matter. In earlier statements, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steven S. Alm has said he would not prematurely release evidence received from HPD, which has withheld body-cam footage.

Alm did say then that the usual internal HPD probes would be done instead by independent prosecutors to ensure impartiality. On the issue of evidence, however, he contended that premature disclosures could prejudice a trial jury.

That stance becomes harder to justify now that there is to be no trial. The public ought to be able to see what the grand jury saw, to gain the context for the decision.

In a media briefing on Thursday, union representatives of the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers said public perceptions were formed through the selective leaking of footage from a single body-cam. Malcolm Lutu, SHOPO president, asked the public to reevaluate what he called a “one-sided narrative” criticizing police actions.

If it is one-sided, that’s all the more reason a fuller perspective is needed.

Beyond the visuals, the public should have access to the transcripts of the jury’s proceedings. This argument is being made by Sykap’s attorney, Eric A. Seitz, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We need to see what evidence was presented and who were called as witnesses,” said Joshua Wisch, executive director of the ACLU of Hawaii.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser concurs: Releasing information would underscore Alm’s willingness to pursue these cases objectively.

And this case does not arise in a vacuum. In the wake of the incendiary George Floyd case in Minneapolis a year ago, police departments across the country have come under scrutiny, fairly or unfairly.

The community conversation on policing has raised questions that will not go away. The disclosure of more information could clarify why the jury believed the police acted within the law, which is clarity that could work to the benefit of police, as much as anyone.