Juries

Grand Juror Sent to Prison for Revealing Information on Facebook

A grand juror, Leslie Lynn Heburn, a 37-year-old Miami woman, pled guilty to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to one year and a day in prison for revealing secret grand jury information.  According to the article below, the grand juror passed along information via Facebook to the girlfriend of a felon charged with illegally dealing firearms.  It is not entirely clear why the grand juror leaked this information; her attorney claimed that it was due to mental illness.  While I am not sure you can pin Heburn's conviction solely on social media, I do wonder whether or not she would be in prison today had she performed her grand jury service 20 years ago rather than in the Digital Age.  

MiamiHerald.com: She spilled grand jury secrets on Facebook. Now she’s going to prison for a year

Grand Juror Suing to Be Allowed to Talk About Grand Jury Process

Missouri, like most jurisdictions, prohibits grand jurors from discussing evidence presented before the grand jury.  This in turn has led one grand juror to bring a legal action to allow him or her to talk about the Darren Wilson grand jury which declined to criminally indict Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown.  According to the article below, the grand juror wants to challenge the contention made by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch that the grand jurors were unanimous in their decision not to charge Darren Wilson in Brown’s death.

STLtoday.com: Judge will allow federal suit by grand juror in Darren Wilson case to proceed

Brief History on the Grand Jury

In light of the work by independent counsel, Robert Mueller, there has been an increased interest in better understanding grand juries and how they function. Here is a short article that provides a historical overview of the grand jury.  I am also quoted in this article.

MentalFloss.com: What is a Grand Jury?

Recording Grand Juries in Oregon

The article below criticizes a proposal in Oregon to record grand jury testimony.  The author is a DA who previously served as president of the Oregon District Attorney's Association.

OregonLive.com: Recording Oregon's Grand Juries is Wrong

 

Grand Jury Process in Ohio

Here is an interesting article from an Ohio newspaper that describes the local grand jury process in Summit County.  What I find so interesting about the article is the involvement of the prosecutor's office.  Like many jurisdictions, the Summit County prosecutor attempts to indoctrinate grand jurors before they even hear the evidence.  Here is a brief excerpt of the article describing the prosecutor's role in the grand jury process.

Each juror received a packet that included information on the grand jury process, victim services, the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office, definitions of legal terms, a list of commonly used acronyms (BAC, DV, OVI), an explanation of felony domestic violence cases, and a flow chart of Ohio’s judicial system. The chart shows the grand jury as the No. 6 step, with its function being to review felony charges to see if they should go to trial.

Juror No. 12 developed an information sheet that she distributed to her fellow jurors that explains the most commonly used drugs, both legal and illegal, what they are used for and what affect they have. (Her list has been added to the grand juror packets.)

The jurors learned they would report for jury duty at 8:30 a.m. Monday through Friday for two months, with the length of time each day depending on the number of cases. They would be paid $20 a day and would have free parking.

Jennifer Cline, the grand jury coordinator, made a solemn promise to the jurors to “keep them stocked with coffee.” This was welcome news to Juror No. 12, a big coffee fan.

The jurors heard from an Akron narcotics officer who gave them a crash course on drugs and weapons, a victim advocate, and Assistant Summit County Prosecutor Greg Peacock, who presides over the felony domestic violence court.

To read the article in full go here.

 

One More Call to Respect the Time of Grand Jurors

Ben Trachtenberg

 

One More Call to Respect the Time of Grand Jurors

Abstract:     

This Article replies briefly to the robust response that Professor Frank O. Bowman III submitted in answer to my earlier contribution to the Missouri Law Review’s symposium issue concerning events in Ferguson, Missouri. Without denying the technical accuracy of a point Professor Bowman raises concerning grand jury procedures (distinguishing between a “true bill” and a valid indictment), I dispute whether the distinction can support all of the weight placed upon it. I also dispute an empirical claim made by Professor Bowman concerning whether grand jury deliberations in sensational cases boost public confidence in the justice system and whether dispensing with the ritual — only in cases where the prosecutor believes at the close of evidence that no indictment should be brought — would create risks to public safety. Finally, I take a moment to clarify what I did — and what I did not — argue in my earlier Article.

More Grand Jury Reforms

 

More Grand Jury Reforms

Here is the latest example of a state attempting to improve how grand juries deal with officer-involved shootings.  In this case it is Georgia which recently passed HB 941.  This new bill, which awaits the governor's signature, makes the following changes:

(1) Limits the presence of law enforcement in the grand jury room

(2) Allows law enforcement to be cross examined by the prosecutor or grand jurors after they testify

(3) Requires the grand jury to issue a public report if it fails to indict 

To read more about the bill go here.

Grand Juries and Law Enforcement

Grand Juries and Law Enforcement

Following a small but growing national trend, Hennepin County has decided to stop sending officer involved shootings to grand juries.  The decision on whether to indict police officers who were involved in shootings will now be made by prosecutors.  To learn more about this change go here.

Silencing Grand Jury Witnesses

R. Michael Cassidy

 

Silencing Grand Jury Witnesses

Abstract:      

The investigations of local police officers for causing the deaths of unarmed civilians in Ferguson, Missouri and Staten Island, New York have generated significant national discourse about the fairness and transparency of grand jury proceedings. This article addresses one crucial aspect of this ongoing debate; that is, whether witnesses before the grand jury should be allowed to talk to each other and to the media about the contents of their testimony. 

In the federal system and in the majority of states that still employ the grand jury as an investigative and charging tool, obligations of grand jury secrecy do not extend to the witnesses themselves. Only persons performing an “official function” before the grand jury are typically covered by the oath of secrecy. Absent a contract or court order, grand jury witnesses are free to talk with each other and to the media. Nevertheless, prosecutors often seek to handcuff grand jurywitnesses in talking to others about their testimony by drafting one-sided cooperation agreements that impose obligations of confidentiality on grand jurywitnesses in exchange for charging or sentencing concessions. Courts on occasion also impose gag orders on grand jury witnesses as part of formal immunity orders. In this article, the author argues that such efforts by prosecutors and courts to impose secrecy obligations on grand jury witnesses violate attorney discipline rules and the First Amendment. As importantly, they impede the target’s access to information essential to enable him to marshal a defense, thus undermining the grand jury’s historic function as a shield against unfounded prosecutions.

No, You 'Stand Up': Why Prosecutors Should Stop Hiding Behind Grand Juries

Ben Trachtenberg

 

No, You 'Stand Up': Why Prosecutors Should Stop Hiding Behind Grand Juries

Abstract:      

This Essay argues that prosecutors should not allow grand juries to consider indicting defendants whom the prosecutors themselves believe should not be indicted. To illustrate the problems with this practice, this Essay uses the example of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch – who encouraged deliberations by the grand jury that heard evidence concerning the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, despite personally believing that Brown’s killer, police officer Darren Wilson, should not be indicted. The arguments against allowing grand juries to conduct such needless deliberations include (1) the exercise wastes the time of citizens forced to serve on grand juries; (2) the deliberations might, despite the prosecutor’s wishes, result in indictments contrary to the interests of justice; and (3) by “passing the buck” to the grand jury, the prosecutor evades accountability for his own decisions.