ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/22/84)
I agree with most of what was said about Grand Juries, but the following is a bit much: > ... most Grand Jurors are rich, old, conservative, and not even > from the local area. This is because of the way they're chosen. They > have to have money so that they don't need to work (at some gainful > occupation). They're usually old, so that they won't mind the time. > They're usually conservative, because they're rich, old, and Most Of > All, because liberals (kooks, eggheads) are not considered the proper > material for Grand Juries by the DA. And with counties like they are > today (10 million people live in LA County), chances are that the 20 or > so on the Grand Jury are all from Beverly Hills, not Watts where the > defendant lives. I have served on a Grand Jury. The mere fact that I work for a living did not get me excused. I am not rich, old, or conservative, but the DA did not seem to mind. He didn't even ask me enough questions to determine whether I might be a liberal, kook or egghead. (Actually it was the DA's assistant. I never even saw the DA.) I don't believe any of my fellow jurors fit the description either. Some of them may have been richer, older, and/or more conservative than I, but all of them were working people (I consider a housewife to be gainfully employed). There was no one on the jury who "didn't mind the time." -- [This is my bugkiller line. It may appear to be misplaced, but it works.] Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
wa263@sdccs7.UUCP (bookmark) (08/24/84)
<- bug snack
[Discussion pertains to United States, of course.]
The Grand Jury system is now in desperate need of reform. When
it was first conceived in England, it meant that a travelling magistrate
would call all of the leading citizens of the area together and ask them
who had committed a yet unpunished crime (since the last visit). The locals
were the ones who knew about their local goings-on, and they had to live
with their neighbors, friends, and relatives even after the judge left, so
this system ensured that only people who deserved it got hailed into court.
The system was extended gradually to include the Grand Jury's calling people
in to question them about things before accusing anyone of anything.
(Trial juries, which only decide the fate of one case, are called
Petit Juries.)
The Grand Jury requirement was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution
because of the colonies' bad experiences with government (British) officers
without local knowlege or responsibility grabbing people and charging them
with criminal offenses. By requiring that people only be tried "...on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." (Amendment V), they hoped to
curb the powers of {bureaucrats}.
In our modern times, however, few urban dwellers know even their
closest neighbors, much less having any idea what they're "up to." The
Grand Jury has little to do with beginning most criminal cases at the
State level where it isn't required by the Constitution (the 14th Amend.
has not been held by the Supreme Court to incorporate the Grand Jury
requirement.) Instead, State cases are usually begun with an
arraignment, which means that the DA tries to convince a magistrate
that the defendant is likely enough to be guilty that he deserves a trial.
At an arraignment, rules of evidence apply, and the defendant may have a
lawyer, and try to convince the judge that he should go free immediately.
There are even appeals, on procedural matters.
Grand Jury proceedings, though, have no neutral magistrate. The
only person allowed to talk to the Grand Jury (besides victims responding
to questions, who may do only that [respond]) is the DA. He may say
anything he likes to convince the Grand Jury that the defendant should be
held and tried for some offense. There are no rules of evidence, no
appeals, and no representation for the accused.
If one Grand Jury won't give the DA an indictment he wants, he
may empanel another, and another, until he gets one which is properly
subservient.
Far from having local knowlege and sympathy, plus community
responsibility (which really means "fear of community displeasure or
ostracism"), most Grand Jurors are rich, old, conservative, and not even
from the local area. This is because of the way they're chosen. They
have to have money so that they don't need to work (at some gainful
occupation). They're usually old, so that they won't mind the time.
They're usually conservative, because they're rich, old, and Most Of
All, because liberals (kooks, eggheads) are not considered the proper
material for Grand Juries by the DA. And with counties like they are
today (10 million people live in LA County), chances are that the 20 or
so on the Grand Jury are all from Beverly Hills, not Watts where the
defendant lives.
The argument that the Grand Jury can't do much harm (because
the accused gets his regular trial anyway) ignores the fact that
immense, possibly irreparable harm is done to the accused by the
indictment alone. His name is smeared all over the front page as an
indicted criminal. He is hauled off to jail. He may get out of jail
for a while, BUT ONLY if he has lots of money (or pledgeable assets) to
make bond. He is forced to endure a painful criminal trial. He must
spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer, OR IF HE HAS NO MONEY, settle
for a PD (Public Defender) who has no time (or help, or money) for
investigation, little respect from the judge, and too much other work
(PD's are notoriously eager to have their clients plead guilty; it's
okay if you can get a good deal, but too bad if you can't; and if you
insist on "innocent" you can't count on the trial outcome with a
bad-tempered PD for help). The fact that DA's may fish for an
indictment AS MUCH AS THEY WANT, WITH AS MANY Grand Juries AS THEY WISH,
is not helpful, either.
Even if he's found innocent, his indictment is grounds for
a divorce; and after what the newspapers and courts put her through,
his spouse may want one. Oh, pity the accused.
The grand jury system needs overhauling. The DA should be
excluded from the Grand Jury as much as all the other attorneys. A new
office ("Steward to the Grand Jury," maybe?) should be established, to
be filled by a capable person (probably a lawyer) whose duties are to
help the Foreman (usually not a lawyer) conduct investigations. This
new officer would do for the GJ what the DA does now with regard to
subpoenas, paperwork, and suchlike. He would not benefit politically
from indictments the way a DA does. Grand Jurors should be paid a good
wage and should be drawn from all walks of life (with a strong law to
force employers to give them back their jobs at the end of their (new)
Six-Month terms).
I would say abolish the grand jury entirely (as being a century
out of its time) but there are still good uses for them. (Especially
investigations of BIG things like the Equity Funding scam, where you
have to subpoena a lot of people and records to get anywhere, and the DA
wouldn't be able easily to come up with grounds for a search warrant.)
bookmark