This article, with its writer's nuanced sensitivity, is easily a stimulus for additional necessary concepts, processes -linear and non-linear ones-and dimensions - cause and effect, associated with, just happened; complicated vs. complex; static vs dynamic- to be considered. When "evidence" is often presented as unblemished-truth. When an experts' opinion misleadingly is heard, and looked at, but not necessarily seen,and listened to not-to-be-questioned TRUTH.When daily adjudication, in a democracy-still-in-progress, remains infected by unassessed traditions. Which can, and do, maintain institutionalized inequities. And a violating, WE-THEY global culture occurs under the rubric of "justice, " while administering differential punishments. Which each of us enable.To haves, have nots, as well as to people who have been 'disappeared." By policies, rooted, and rooted for, by traditions, and not facts; however delineated. As well as by the ingrained toxicity of willful blindness, deafness, obtuseness,and even ignorance. A great deal remains to be questioned. Even as there are many who claim that THEY have THE answer(s). The oft quoted caveat by Georgia's Gov. Roy Barnes can be useful as a person, group, system begins a necessary quest-inherent in any relevant question: "The law should be a shield for the weak and the powerless, not a club for the powerful." What can and does enable this to BE? What can and does interfere? How can documented barriers to...become bridges to...?
I grew up in east Houston as a big working class white guy. No doubt the working class black and Hispanic guys had it worse.
My Texas criminal justice field trip came in 1970, when a school bus pulled up to my high school and three of us got on. They took us to tour the Texas prison for 1st offenders. Just about everyone on the bus looked like they played football - looking a little big, rough, and young isn't the picnic some of you imagine. The warden didn't much like it when I asked a question.
I got rousted on average about once a year between ages 16 and 24. No arrests fortunately, though they were looking hard for a reason on about 1/2 the stops. The scariest time was when my car broke down at a gas station and I didn't know someone had just robbed the place. Two police cars roared in and one officer trained his pistol on me.
I was 22 and he looked younger. Two Houston police had recently emptied their clips into a sweet-natured mentally challenged young man in NE Houston who reached into his back pocket for his Bible. The news in Houston that week was that the police used their own money to buy bullets outlawed by the Geneva convention.
But the scariest part was that in the dim light 25 feet away I could see how much his hands were shaking.
We sure depend a lot on the training, discretion, doctrine, and attitude of police and prosecutors.
My Texas criminal justice field trip came in 1970, when a school bus pulled up to my high school and three of us got on. They took us to tour the Texas prison for 1st offenders. Just about everyone on the bus looked like they played football - looking a little big, rough, and young isn't the picnic some of you imagine. The warden didn't much like it when I asked a question.
I got rousted on average about once a year between ages 16 and 24. No arrests fortunately, though they were looking hard for a reason on about 1/2 the stops. The scariest time was when my car broke down at a gas station and I didn't know someone had just robbed the place. Two police cars roared in and one officer trained his pistol on me.
I was 22 and he looked younger. Two Houston police had recently emptied their clips into a sweet-natured mentally challenged young man in NE Houston who reached into his back pocket for his Bible. The news in Houston that week was that the police used their own money to buy bullets outlawed by the Geneva convention.
But the scariest part was that in the dim light 25 feet away I could see how much his hands were shaking.
We sure depend a lot on the training, discretion, doctrine, and attitude of police and prosecutors.
6
I was foreman of a criminal court grand jury in New Orleans for a regular term (six months I believe) about 15 years ago. The members, as in Ms. Swartz's case, were mixed race and gender--two white males. The cases presented to us by the District Attorney's office were thorough, systematic, and tight, easily meeting the standard of proof for indictment, which of course is lower than that for trial court conviction.
We knew all about the ham sandwich folk wisdom. We asked tough questions and got good answers.
You would have had to be a ham sandwich not to indict. I can only recall dissents in two cases, one juror in each case.
My guess is that this is not atypical grand jury experience around the country. I can guess Ms. Swartz's political leanings.
We knew all about the ham sandwich folk wisdom. We asked tough questions and got good answers.
You would have had to be a ham sandwich not to indict. I can only recall dissents in two cases, one juror in each case.
My guess is that this is not atypical grand jury experience around the country. I can guess Ms. Swartz's political leanings.
2
I was on a grand jury. Only once did I have qualms about indicting the accused person, over a minor violation of drug laws. I voted not to indict; my colleagues voted yes and he was indicted. But the rest of them? There was plenty of evidence to suggest they had committed the offense in question. The whole process (which has been abolished in Canada and the UK) is really just a dress rehearsal for trial: to see how receptive the jury is to the prosecution's narrative, especially in complicated cases. By the time an indictment comes down, all of the investigative work has been done.
1
The case of the guy arrested for walking in the street and prosecuted for drugs illustrates to me how little people, especially left-leaning people, understand police work.
When it comes to things like drugs, weapons, and stolen property, criminals are rarely dumb enough to take them out of their pockets and show them to me, a uniformed police officer. And when it comes to people with warrants, I do not have a photographic memory allowing me to recognize on-sight every one of the tens of thousands of people with felony and misdemeanor warrants. And in America, to check somebody's ID, I need a legal reason to stop them, probable cause that they are breaking some kind of law.
So I contact people for minor violations. Traffic infractions. Littering. Loitering. Trespassing. And yes, sometimes even jaywalking. Stopping, detaining, and arresting people for minor violations allows us, the police, to check their name for a warrant and if they are arrested, to search their person for guns, stolen property, and drugs. Is it an inconvenience for people who aren't doing anything except jaywalking - yes. But I've also arrested gang members with felony warrants after contacting them for littering.
I wouldn't arrest anyone for weed, but I might stop a man walking on the street instead of the sidewalk. And unless the author wants police to serve primarily as note-takers who record crimes after they have been committed, this is the reality of police work.
When it comes to things like drugs, weapons, and stolen property, criminals are rarely dumb enough to take them out of their pockets and show them to me, a uniformed police officer. And when it comes to people with warrants, I do not have a photographic memory allowing me to recognize on-sight every one of the tens of thousands of people with felony and misdemeanor warrants. And in America, to check somebody's ID, I need a legal reason to stop them, probable cause that they are breaking some kind of law.
So I contact people for minor violations. Traffic infractions. Littering. Loitering. Trespassing. And yes, sometimes even jaywalking. Stopping, detaining, and arresting people for minor violations allows us, the police, to check their name for a warrant and if they are arrested, to search their person for guns, stolen property, and drugs. Is it an inconvenience for people who aren't doing anything except jaywalking - yes. But I've also arrested gang members with felony warrants after contacting them for littering.
I wouldn't arrest anyone for weed, but I might stop a man walking on the street instead of the sidewalk. And unless the author wants police to serve primarily as note-takers who record crimes after they have been committed, this is the reality of police work.
3
When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.
1
If you are indicted, you must take time off from work, pay a lawyer thousands of dollars, lose status in the community, be stressed psychologically, etc.; such that the law has a grand jury to protect you the individual from prosecutorial oppression and insubstantial evidence. Thus the jurors have a grave responsibility to the individual to protect them from the excesses of the state; not to support the state's institutions that are perceived to protect the public. Please research the purpose and process of the grand jury.
The grand jury seems to have become almost a practice trial for the prosecutor.
The grand jury seems to have become almost a practice trial for the prosecutor.
9
About 20 years ago, I too served on a grand jury. I learned a great deal. We had a mixed group of people on the GJ, and we asked a lot of questions. Here's what I lose sleep over: Several years after the GJ, several police officers were indicted and went to jail. Most of those officers were the ones who brought cases to the court in which I served. I have often agonized over their reports of "a white, rock-like substance that appeared to be crack cocaine," especially since they were eventually convicted of having stolen evidence from evidence lockers in the police station. As I reflect, I recall a disproportionate number of African-American defendants. I was proud to be part of that GJ and would rather serve on another GJ rather than a "regular" trial jury in the future, but, if I were t do that, I would be more wary.
As for the "a good DA could indict a ham sandwich" cliche: The GJ on which I served really gave the assistant DA who made that proclamation to us a hard time, asked him many questions, asked him to re-read statutes, and asked for clarification on a number of cases.
We did not have "interesting field trips" resembling the ones cited here. We did have to make a commitment to serve every Tuesday and Thursday from 1-4 pm. This can be a hardship for some. My employer at the time was civic-minded and quite understanding.
As for the "a good DA could indict a ham sandwich" cliche: The GJ on which I served really gave the assistant DA who made that proclamation to us a hard time, asked him many questions, asked him to re-read statutes, and asked for clarification on a number of cases.
We did not have "interesting field trips" resembling the ones cited here. We did have to make a commitment to serve every Tuesday and Thursday from 1-4 pm. This can be a hardship for some. My employer at the time was civic-minded and quite understanding.
7
I would encourage everyone who has the opportunity, to serve on a jury or grand jury. We were advised by prosecutors who were immensely well prepared, and others who were not, we saw officers who practiced community policing and others who did not. Like the author, I found my experience enormously enriching, and I walked away with a lot of respect for the system in NY, where only a grand jury can issue an indictment for a felony. I do wish the jury pool was more diverse, and in particular younger citizens should serve. Both victims and accused were often young.
6
Years ago, I concluded that, because of the increased use of very complicated and scientific evidence, we should develop a career of professional jurors. These individuals would have some education and training in both police methods and scientific analysis so they could adequately evaluate the evidence presented in trials. This would be a career position and overseen by judges. Some educational requirements would be in place and the pool would be diverse in race, gender, age and ethnicity. A jury of peers is no long possible or even reasonable.
6
A friend of mine once quoted to me "There is no justice in the Justice system.
This story proves it. Very frightening indeed.
This story proves it. Very frightening indeed.
4
The election in 2016 of a progressive district attorney, sheriff AND POLICE CHIEF raised hopes of better police oversight.
Good God Almighty, I hope this "writer" never serves on a trial jury if he can't get his facts straight any better. The police chief is NOT, repeat NOT, an elected position. He gets appointed by the mayor.
Good God Almighty, I hope this "writer" never serves on a trial jury if he can't get his facts straight any better. The police chief is NOT, repeat NOT, an elected position. He gets appointed by the mayor.
1
She. The writer is a woman. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, no?
7
GRAND JURIES Three of them. Have been convened by Robert Mueller, who's the former FBI chief, now the special counsel to investigate the connection between Trump's election and Russian collusion. Security must be tight, because beyond mentioning that the grand juries are working, nothing further has emerged. Which is precisely how the system is meant to work. Once indictments have been issued and the cases are brought into court, the public will be informed. With Nixon and Clinton, it took over a year to get the grand juries up to speed. But I think that Mueller is working with all due haste, because, like it or not, the US is in the midst of a historic constitutional crisis, made dangerous because of the apparent collusion of a hostile foreign power in trying to influence the 2016 presidential election. There is no question that Russia has adopted a policy of attempting to influence elections in Europe and the US. Beyond that, Putin's involvement in the Syrian war has shielded Assad from most consequences of a poison gas attack. Putin's power mad actions raise the question of his hold on reality. What is going to be the result of his aggression? He's not in the USSR anymore, so there's no possibility of having Communism take over the world. What, then, is Putin's ultimate goal? Making the world safe for thugocracies? Whatever the case, I wish that he'd content himself with taking his billions to a tropical island and spending his days in a hammock drinking rum.
5
I sat on a grand jury twice a week for months - as a licensed attorney. The prosecutors were responsible and fair. They followed the law.
However, my relations with my fellow grand jurors was contentious. They were adjured to corroborate with the relative statutes, and apply the law to the facts. However, most decided to do whatever they felt like, or whatever they thought jibed with their own idiosyncratic ideas about the law and justice.
For instance, felony murder: a murder charge that is invoked when someone dies in the course of a commission of a felony. The jurors did not think it fair that a perpetrator was charged with felony murder when one of his co-conspirators had died - even though it is defined by statute.
And as far as the illegal use of firearms, they never voted for prosecution. To them, an individual has an inalienable right to shoot whatever gun, whenever and wherever.
With our atomistic, rugged individual society, many people feel they are a lawmaker unto themselves. Disrespect for authority is epidemic. This situated has become more virulent with smart phones and social media. Now it is fashionable for every man and every woman to be opinionated, a self-styled expert, and a know-it-all.
The jury system is broken, and needs to be reconfigured to be effective.
Nonetheless, I think there are way too many bad police officers on the streets, and they should be held accountable.
However, my relations with my fellow grand jurors was contentious. They were adjured to corroborate with the relative statutes, and apply the law to the facts. However, most decided to do whatever they felt like, or whatever they thought jibed with their own idiosyncratic ideas about the law and justice.
For instance, felony murder: a murder charge that is invoked when someone dies in the course of a commission of a felony. The jurors did not think it fair that a perpetrator was charged with felony murder when one of his co-conspirators had died - even though it is defined by statute.
And as far as the illegal use of firearms, they never voted for prosecution. To them, an individual has an inalienable right to shoot whatever gun, whenever and wherever.
With our atomistic, rugged individual society, many people feel they are a lawmaker unto themselves. Disrespect for authority is epidemic. This situated has become more virulent with smart phones and social media. Now it is fashionable for every man and every woman to be opinionated, a self-styled expert, and a know-it-all.
The jury system is broken, and needs to be reconfigured to be effective.
Nonetheless, I think there are way too many bad police officers on the streets, and they should be held accountable.
15
If it’s a police officer, he is not “the police”: he is an individual, and should be considered as such. You can retain your faith in the police while questioning the actions of one officer. For different reasons, different people want to make a police officer a representative of a class, so that your judgment will be based on how much confidence—or how little—you have in the police as a whole. That is a political matter, not one for a jury.
5
small fact check: If you're referring to the City of Houston Police Chief, he was appointed [not elected] last year by Mayor Turner.
1
2 years ago I was a county Grand Jury Foreman. For 17 consecutive weeks our jury met for 4-5 hours. Most of the cases were for fire arms possession, drugs and assault. For a few weeks we heard only child abuse cases. The story of those abused were the saddest.
However, it was a case against a local law enforcement officer and the abuse of his wife and family that was the most disturbing. We heard 4 weeks of witnesses. They all were lying to protect the accused. We jurors KNEW they were all lying. Especially the victim/wife. They didn't even lie very well.
Why would they lie? So the defendant would not lose his police pension. In the end we did not indict for lack of evidence. It was a very rude awakening of how the "justice" system really works.
However, it was a case against a local law enforcement officer and the abuse of his wife and family that was the most disturbing. We heard 4 weeks of witnesses. They all were lying to protect the accused. We jurors KNEW they were all lying. Especially the victim/wife. They didn't even lie very well.
Why would they lie? So the defendant would not lose his police pension. In the end we did not indict for lack of evidence. It was a very rude awakening of how the "justice" system really works.
10
I was on a federal grand jury for two years (one day a week), and my experience is that the U.S. attorneys consider the juries to be machines which spit out indictments. Most of these people are unmotivated, less educated, authority-worshipping cogs, who believe everything they hear from an authority figure, and deliver what's expected of them. We never voted against an indictment.
The overwhelming majority of cases were good indictments, but my fellow jurors refused to consider egregiously unbelievable evidence in many cases. They were mostly focused on getting out to lunch, or quitting early.
The attorneys didn't hide, and in fact bragged about using indictments with every possible charge piled on top as leverage to get targets to plead out instead of going to trial. That is the biggest shame of the U.S. "justice" system.
My advice to anyone indicted who is either innocent or believe they have a good defense is to demand their day in court, because so many of these bogus indictments would not stand up to scrutiny.
The overwhelming majority of cases were good indictments, but my fellow jurors refused to consider egregiously unbelievable evidence in many cases. They were mostly focused on getting out to lunch, or quitting early.
The attorneys didn't hide, and in fact bragged about using indictments with every possible charge piled on top as leverage to get targets to plead out instead of going to trial. That is the biggest shame of the U.S. "justice" system.
My advice to anyone indicted who is either innocent or believe they have a good defense is to demand their day in court, because so many of these bogus indictments would not stand up to scrutiny.
17
Policing is a high risk profession, like coal mining, high rise construction, tank dismantling, and fire fighting. Police are compensated for doing that high risk job. And the fact that it is high risk does not justify transferring that risk to citizens. Cops should be no more able to avoid accountability for killing someone than I would be.
16
Actually, it is a myth that policing is a dangerous high-risk profession.
The most dangerous occupation is that of prostitute, where one is 51 times more likely to be killed while working than in the second most dangerous occupation, that of liquor store clerk. Those are followed by fishing, logging, piloting, garbage/recycling, roofing, structural and steel workers, agricultural workers, drivers, power line workers. Police work is not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs. And most police who die at work suffered the fatal injuries in car crashes, often caused by officer-initiated high-speed chases.
The police shoot and kill at least a thousand Americans every year and are almost never held accountable. Far more innocent people are killed by police every year than police killed by criminals, this by at least a factor of 10.
Among my people, we do not call the police or 911, because a paranoid anxiety-ridden trigger-happy murderer may respond.
The most dangerous occupation is that of prostitute, where one is 51 times more likely to be killed while working than in the second most dangerous occupation, that of liquor store clerk. Those are followed by fishing, logging, piloting, garbage/recycling, roofing, structural and steel workers, agricultural workers, drivers, power line workers. Police work is not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs. And most police who die at work suffered the fatal injuries in car crashes, often caused by officer-initiated high-speed chases.
The police shoot and kill at least a thousand Americans every year and are almost never held accountable. Far more innocent people are killed by police every year than police killed by criminals, this by at least a factor of 10.
Among my people, we do not call the police or 911, because a paranoid anxiety-ridden trigger-happy murderer may respond.
We often hear that you don't want to see how two things are made -- sausage and law.
To actually see how the law is enforced, well, that is so entirely beyond the gross parameters of sausage and lawmaking it usually can't be mentioned. Thanks for sharing the insights here.
That's also why there has always been such resistance to things like body cams for cops on the beat, videotaping of interrogations, and other sorts of evidentiary aids that a civilian might think would be useful to the police. Nope, in our "justice" system what is more important than the truth is how it can be creatively edited and interpreted to be most useful to the government.
A recent ACLU study pointed out how the vast differences in racial enforcement of cannabis law in New York City aren't problems of individually racist cops, but of the policy and management priorities of a racist justice system. It's not like those white kids are smoking less reefer -- or walking off the sidewalk -- than black kids.
The public -- and grand jurors -- would be well-advised to deeply question what they are being served up as "justice." More especially so when it involves claims of enforcement that is so obviously skewed actually resolving any problems except next year's budget justifications for law enforcement, the courts and prisons.
The "justice" system is a lot like "reality" TV. It's scripted, arranged, and quite often has little to nothing to do with justice or reality.
To actually see how the law is enforced, well, that is so entirely beyond the gross parameters of sausage and lawmaking it usually can't be mentioned. Thanks for sharing the insights here.
That's also why there has always been such resistance to things like body cams for cops on the beat, videotaping of interrogations, and other sorts of evidentiary aids that a civilian might think would be useful to the police. Nope, in our "justice" system what is more important than the truth is how it can be creatively edited and interpreted to be most useful to the government.
A recent ACLU study pointed out how the vast differences in racial enforcement of cannabis law in New York City aren't problems of individually racist cops, but of the policy and management priorities of a racist justice system. It's not like those white kids are smoking less reefer -- or walking off the sidewalk -- than black kids.
The public -- and grand jurors -- would be well-advised to deeply question what they are being served up as "justice." More especially so when it involves claims of enforcement that is so obviously skewed actually resolving any problems except next year's budget justifications for law enforcement, the courts and prisons.
The "justice" system is a lot like "reality" TV. It's scripted, arranged, and quite often has little to nothing to do with justice or reality.
12
Concerning the indictment of officers shooting citizens on the street, be they of any ethnicity, it's worth remembering there are hundreds of millions of guns floating around in the US with little if any reliable or effective control, and THAT's what makes policing in the US such a dangerous job.
That argument is not a defense for gross or reckless conduct by police, its context for the epidemic of gun related violence in which we live.
With respect to the practice of lax control over grand jury indictments, taking the profit and career incentives out of generating indictments, trials, convictions, and incarcerations, would be a great first step.
Providing professional grand juries separate and independent from the prosecutor's offices would also help.
Humiliating Perp walks of the not yet convicted or post convicted, and preening TV interviews from self aggrandizing prosecutors, should be banned in all circumstances as unbecoming to an enlightened society.
Prosecutors should be banned from appearing on TV in all cases.
That argument is not a defense for gross or reckless conduct by police, its context for the epidemic of gun related violence in which we live.
With respect to the practice of lax control over grand jury indictments, taking the profit and career incentives out of generating indictments, trials, convictions, and incarcerations, would be a great first step.
Providing professional grand juries separate and independent from the prosecutor's offices would also help.
Humiliating Perp walks of the not yet convicted or post convicted, and preening TV interviews from self aggrandizing prosecutors, should be banned in all circumstances as unbecoming to an enlightened society.
Prosecutors should be banned from appearing on TV in all cases.
3
I wouldn't be losing sleep. Though certainly no laughing matter, an indictment is just a charge -- an accusation, in other words. It isn't a conviction. Other members of the public serving on petit juries will have to make the tough decisions. The author's decisions weren't so tough.
1
Indictments *are* a big deal bc the typical defendant will typically face multiple charges, a fact prosecutors eagerly seek to exploit to get leverage to force defendants to capitulate to a guilty plea. Very few cases go to trial.
10
My experience during 2-weeks of concentrated Grand Jury duty in NYC was not inspiring.
Jurors were forbidden to use "devices" in the courtroom, but permitted to use them in the adjacent break room where WiFi was provided.
Result was a rush to judgement on almost every case. "Let's just vote now and see how it goes before we discuss this" was one jurors immediate opening once the prosecutors walked out the door... No discussion was likely to change his perspective / snap decision which was always to indict... because "the cops and prosecutors know how to do their job"
The rest of the jury eventually overruled him - but it became clear that his real motivation was to get back onto his phone and get whatever business he could accomplish done before the next case walked in...
His ability to do business during breaks resulted in his attempts to prolong those breaks - at the expense of the defendants.
Broken system... that keeps going through the motions as if it isn't.
Jurors were forbidden to use "devices" in the courtroom, but permitted to use them in the adjacent break room where WiFi was provided.
Result was a rush to judgement on almost every case. "Let's just vote now and see how it goes before we discuss this" was one jurors immediate opening once the prosecutors walked out the door... No discussion was likely to change his perspective / snap decision which was always to indict... because "the cops and prosecutors know how to do their job"
The rest of the jury eventually overruled him - but it became clear that his real motivation was to get back onto his phone and get whatever business he could accomplish done before the next case walked in...
His ability to do business during breaks resulted in his attempts to prolong those breaks - at the expense of the defendants.
Broken system... that keeps going through the motions as if it isn't.
9
Empowering juries,both trail juries and grand juries, would rapidly impact our court system and law enforcement systems. Require full explanation of the power of the Grand Jury to subpoena witnesses and call for more evidence. DA's using them as rubber stamps has soured the public's view of our legal system. Juries made up of your peers were created not to weigh the veracity of witnesses but rather to seek justice. Jury Nullification is a power juries have, and in some states the court's have rules against telling the jury they can Nullify laws in the interest of justice. Judges, and therefor lawyers, often see Jury Nullification as stealing their power, which it rightfully does. Our Courts are to serve Our interests and the nullification of poorly crafted laws, or ones outdated or inappropriate, sends messages to elected officials as well as the whole system. Empower juries and you empower the public.
4
We're none of us beyond reproach and not having true anonymity as jurists and members who live in our communities we afterwards remain visible and vulnerable to victimization by aggressive policing. We harbor a natural,instinct of being singled out by police if we find for the victim against them. There has to be a better way.
Additionally thinking back to those after high school days why did some of the most troublesome peers become police officers.
As a rule college graduates become generally better police officers with fewer complaints. Coincidentally those officers who had more civilian complaints against them rose more quickly through the ranks, maybe the Minnesotan officer will follow suit.q
Additionally thinking back to those after high school days why did some of the most troublesome peers become police officers.
As a rule college graduates become generally better police officers with fewer complaints. Coincidentally those officers who had more civilian complaints against them rose more quickly through the ranks, maybe the Minnesotan officer will follow suit.q
4
Another person late to the party. I suppose telling her story serves a purpose to inform others. And I'm glad her role in indicting people that should not have been indicted is eating at her conscience. An outright apology seems appropriate, but is missing. And I am intensely annoyed that an otherwise intelligent person requires "a young black lawyer" to trigger some vestige of social conscience, not to mention serious attention to the principals of justice. Where did you get your law degree? Surely you didn't get fleeced aat Trump Law School?
6
The author is not an attorney -- where did you get the idea that she has a law degree?
7
true - however she did not sit on a trial jury where both sides presented their evidence and presented their cases - and find people guilty.
1
When you leave your social and medical problems to police, you get an infrequent, and sometimes terrible outcome. Police are given domestic violence, mental illness, theft, murder, illegal trade and trafficking, addiction, schizophrenics, paranoids, hostage situations, armed confrontations with automatic weapons, knives, bombs, etc., etc. as FIRST RESPONDERS. We don't have a preemptive system that deals with these things in advance, or in a civil rather than a police manner.
Remember, there are MILLIONS of police/citizen interactions every single day. A few of them go wrong - terribly wrong- and should and are addressed even as criminal matters. But in relation to the overall performance level of police, it is a rare, rare thing for police to be guilty of criminal violence. Next time you have a prowler outside your door - try reasoning with him....
Remember, there are MILLIONS of police/citizen interactions every single day. A few of them go wrong - terribly wrong- and should and are addressed even as criminal matters. But in relation to the overall performance level of police, it is a rare, rare thing for police to be guilty of criminal violence. Next time you have a prowler outside your door - try reasoning with him....
2
Prosecution and Police organizations are always among the most politically powerful in any jurisdiction. The system is designed to protect the system as they want it.
Generally speaking, you don't get become a judge if you are opposed by the DA or police unions. Meaning, most judges on some level do feel beholden to both the DA and the police.
Generally speaking, you don't get to become a grand juror if you are someone with any history of skepticism toward the DA or police. Meaning most grand jurors are indeed rubber stamps.
That is the way it is. And, scary enough, it probably is the way most people like it.
I have been a deputy public defender for more than 25 years. Here in California we are slowly trying to get away from incarceration based punishment for non-violent crimes. But police and district attorney organizations have been fighting the trend tooth and nail. It is not uncommon to hear a DA boasting about the lengthy sentence they got for a defendant, or a probation officer predicting that an individual will not last long on probation. It is as if the raison d'etre of most people involved with the enforcement side of the criminal justice system is to lock people up.
I find it sickening. What kind of twisted person dedicates their life to locking people up in jail?
Generally speaking, you don't get become a judge if you are opposed by the DA or police unions. Meaning, most judges on some level do feel beholden to both the DA and the police.
Generally speaking, you don't get to become a grand juror if you are someone with any history of skepticism toward the DA or police. Meaning most grand jurors are indeed rubber stamps.
That is the way it is. And, scary enough, it probably is the way most people like it.
I have been a deputy public defender for more than 25 years. Here in California we are slowly trying to get away from incarceration based punishment for non-violent crimes. But police and district attorney organizations have been fighting the trend tooth and nail. It is not uncommon to hear a DA boasting about the lengthy sentence they got for a defendant, or a probation officer predicting that an individual will not last long on probation. It is as if the raison d'etre of most people involved with the enforcement side of the criminal justice system is to lock people up.
I find it sickening. What kind of twisted person dedicates their life to locking people up in jail?
10
This is American Exceptionalism at work. Just as the US has a unique medical-industrial complex that serves shareholders spectacularly well by failing to serve sick people, we have a prison-industrial complex that generates enormous wealth for executives and shareholders and creates numerous jobs for lesser mortals. Both systems have transcended their original purposes in favor of profit and empire-building.
The medical-industrial complex is no longer about health care, which it considers "medical loss." Similarly, the prison-industrial complex is no longer about "justice," but about the profits and careers created by locking people up. When someone actually speaks up about justice (like the lawyer and the former judge) they're vilified as spanners thrown into an assembly line that efficiently shuttles people into cells, where numerous interests can profit from their incarceration.
A grand juror is simply a cog in the assembly line. Their task is to squeeze a grease gun whenever a prosecutor has a body that can become a statistic to further his or her career. Or occasionally, to withhold the grease at the prosecutor's request when the body is a police officer. In a way, grand jurors are like prisoners in that the system exploits their mostly-uncompensated work for profit.
It isn't the people who are "twisted." They're merely pursuing gainful employment. The real question is what sort of a society makes locking people up in jail a highly lucrative industry?
The medical-industrial complex is no longer about health care, which it considers "medical loss." Similarly, the prison-industrial complex is no longer about "justice," but about the profits and careers created by locking people up. When someone actually speaks up about justice (like the lawyer and the former judge) they're vilified as spanners thrown into an assembly line that efficiently shuttles people into cells, where numerous interests can profit from their incarceration.
A grand juror is simply a cog in the assembly line. Their task is to squeeze a grease gun whenever a prosecutor has a body that can become a statistic to further his or her career. Or occasionally, to withhold the grease at the prosecutor's request when the body is a police officer. In a way, grand jurors are like prisoners in that the system exploits their mostly-uncompensated work for profit.
It isn't the people who are "twisted." They're merely pursuing gainful employment. The real question is what sort of a society makes locking people up in jail a highly lucrative industry?
5
I served on a grand jury several years ago. We rubber stamped like crazy. I'm not proud of that. I don't know if our grand jury had any subpoena power, but it never came up. When the jury ended, I googled and found that we hadn't been told 1/3 of the whole story.. We were only told the stories that would lead to rubber stamping. The defendant deserved indictments for some of the allegations, but not for all that. We didn't know enough to actually be just.
9
Your jury did technically have the power to subpoena, as did mine, but the attorneys would never have let you use it. They won't permit any evidence except what they cherry pick to make the jury produce their indictment.
6
I was a foreman of the Grand Jury in Calhoun County TX several years ago. Ms. Swartz is correct in that the prosecutors don't like to be questioned. It was an eye opening experience. Grand jury is a flawed but important process and a significant civic responsibility.
8
I'm amazed Ms. Swartz and the two legal professionals even made it on a jury. The way most juries are picked these days, anyone with a brain is eliminated from consideration.
4
I couldn't agree more. I was summoned to serve, but at every selection when I stated my profession (an engineer) I was struck the first round, every single time. My successful defense attorney friend later bragged, "Oh, hell yes, I want them dumb and dumber!"
3
And we wonder why our court system is overloaded!
1
I was on grand jury in Bronx. No cop cases. I agreed with every true bill (indictment). We let off one fellow who was probably innocent. The regular jury has to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not the grand jury. We were not there to try the case.
8
How do jurors get selected for a grand jury? Is selection entirely up to the prosecutor? If so, what's to prevent the prosecutor from selecting a bench full of former police officers, prosecutors, and other folks likely to side with him?
1
Basically, no. In NY, serving on a grand jury is a matter of the luck of the draw - for everyone. Your name can be pulled from lists of "registered voters, state taxpayers, licensed drivers, recipients of public assistance benefits and recipients of state unemployment compensation." You cannot be excused except for very specific reasons; there is no appearance by a defense attorney before a grand jury, only the prosecutor(s). The prosecutor cannot hand pick or exclude potential jurors. Their advantage is that of course, this is only seeking to show that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a case - and the jury is presented with the prosecutor's side,and s/he is not going to call up defense witnesses. The individual charged may appear of his own volition, but is "defenseless"
2
I also served on a grand jury in Harris County in 2009, right after graduating law school an. I can confirm everything Mimi says here, including the use of "walking on the street when a sidewalk was present" to search and arrest citizens for failing to have ID or carrying microscopic amounts of drugs. The most interesting distinction, to me, was when my fellow, mostly retired jurors were quick to indict young minorities searched under suspect circumstances who unknowingly had marijuana debris in their pockets -- but were equally quick to no-bill a 56 year old caucasian who forgot his handgun was in his carry-on at the airport (a more serious crime). (For the record, I also did not want to charge a felony when I did not believe he had felonious intent.) Fortunately, there were two other young lawyers on our jury, so we became known as a tough-questioning group that was NOT going to indict a ham sandwich. My only quibble with Mimi's piece is that, in my experience, once prosecutors realized that we were a tough grand jury, they used prosecutorial discretion to bring us the cases they did not think warranted indictment -- and, I believed, were able to use us to avoid unnecessarily ruining people's lives (understanding that most who would be found "not guilty" after a full trial cannot afford lawyers and acquiesce to misplaced criminal charges because they have no other choice). The election of DA Ogg and the 2015 shift to random juries will benefit Houston even more.
11
All we need to do, now, is convict the wretched murderers. Cops now know that they may kill with impunity. Nothing will happen to them. They will get away with it, 99% of the time.
2
It seems very odd that Texas, which favors no regulation of guns, and almost no regulation by the federal government, favors stop and frisk of people walking in streets devoid of traffic. I suspect a few stops of affluent whites would change that in a hurry.
8
Very good article. I have two questions for you though.
Why do you help promote the myth that "police put their lives on the line every day" when it's been shown that they have one of the safest professions in the country? (use the internet to look up the research)
And why do you use the code "law and order" for support of the police?
It's time we began to apply "law and order" to everyone. That includes the police.
Why do you help promote the myth that "police put their lives on the line every day" when it's been shown that they have one of the safest professions in the country? (use the internet to look up the research)
And why do you use the code "law and order" for support of the police?
It's time we began to apply "law and order" to everyone. That includes the police.
17
Ive been thinking. Racism and bias exist in all people. Even POC and Native peoples have bias.
As a white person, If I was to get indicted by a grand jury, the POC members bias could hurt me and result in me being charged with crimes I didnt commit.
If implicit bias is impossible to mitigate then I want every single person on that jury to be white. If they look like me I will get a fair hearing.
Why dont we just stop the charade and realize thay when we say we are tried by a jury composed of our peers, really that should mean a jury composed of people like us.
Imagine this. Im black and I am getting indicted. If my judge, jury, and everyone associated with my justice is black, dont you think Ill get a more fair result?
If I was black I wouldnt want any white people on my jury. As a white person, I dont want a biased black persom to try to put me in jail just because they hate whites.
Seems like a simple fix. Also, why not have only black police officers patrol black areas? Why not have only black police officers hired from the local area patrol black areas? Same for whites. If you are black and your cop is black, you probably will get along better.
If implicit bias is impossible to get rid of, why not develop strategies to prevent bias from even being able to present itself?
As a white person, If I was to get indicted by a grand jury, the POC members bias could hurt me and result in me being charged with crimes I didnt commit.
If implicit bias is impossible to mitigate then I want every single person on that jury to be white. If they look like me I will get a fair hearing.
Why dont we just stop the charade and realize thay when we say we are tried by a jury composed of our peers, really that should mean a jury composed of people like us.
Imagine this. Im black and I am getting indicted. If my judge, jury, and everyone associated with my justice is black, dont you think Ill get a more fair result?
If I was black I wouldnt want any white people on my jury. As a white person, I dont want a biased black persom to try to put me in jail just because they hate whites.
Seems like a simple fix. Also, why not have only black police officers patrol black areas? Why not have only black police officers hired from the local area patrol black areas? Same for whites. If you are black and your cop is black, you probably will get along better.
If implicit bias is impossible to get rid of, why not develop strategies to prevent bias from even being able to present itself?
2
I think this is called apartheid.
3
You mean, we're not equal?
Grand juries actually have extensive powers yet too often they are a toll of the prosecution. It would be very useful if grand jurors were given detailed instructions as to their powers and told they don't have to follow the recommendations of the prosecution, can question witnesses and in fact can refuse to indict.
1
Served a month (about 12 days) in 2016 in Westchester. We were given a long, detailed introduction to the rules. When questions came up that had to do with the process, we were able to seek further explanation from the Commissioner of Jurors. The group I was in became very comfortable with asking questions and identifying what was missing.
2
Sometimes it works the other way. On April 5, 1967 an arson fire in a Cornell U. dormitory killed nine people. Two subsequent arsons targeted the survivors of the first fire. A prime suspect was quickly identified and evidence accumulated, but the grand jury refused to indict. Some survivors attribute this to pressure in a company town (Ithaca, N. Y.) to avoid bad publicity for the university.
3
The fundamental principle of conflict of interest, if taken seriously by the Bar and the Judiciary, would have ended this practice in which the prosecutors must rely upon the accused in all their other cases.
This is a travesty and one of the fundamental violations of equal protection of the law that are driving us deeper into a police state.
This is a travesty and one of the fundamental violations of equal protection of the law that are driving us deeper into a police state.
4
Having served twice on grand juries, I can attest to the fact that every effort is made by citizens to "do the right thing." On my last one, we used our powers to INCREASE the charge in one odious case and REDUCE the charge on another. Both decisions were made after serious deliberation and I was very proud to have participated in this jury. I suspect that on very high profile cases the pressures are understandably much greater.
5
My Grand Jury service was pretty satisfying as well - most everyone focused carefully, and many asked probing questions about the details presented - and about things that seemed to have been omitted. The jury also represented a wide cross section of people, who were able to discuss the matters before them with much more civility than we've been seeing in our leaders.
1
Reminder to author and editor: Police officers are CIVILIANS. At least so far in this country, in spite of efforts to militarize them. Distinguishing us from them as civilians only accelerates the decay toward a police state.
40
Yes. And it would be good to remind people that, while police work is no doubt frequently stressful, it is not unduly dangerous. As a profession, it routinely ranks between twentieth and thirtieth most dangerous. And a high proportion of police deaths are from car accidents, since they drive a lot and sometimes at high speed.
We don't give a pass to lumberjacks, farmers, fishermen, truck drivers or construction workers when they kill, even though those professions are, by the numbers, far more dangerous.
We don't give a pass to lumberjacks, farmers, fishermen, truck drivers or construction workers when they kill, even though those professions are, by the numbers, far more dangerous.
11
Hope - none of the dangers of the professions you mention usually include people shooting at them. There is an inherent difference between dangers caused by an unthinking environment and dangers caused by people attempting to kill you.
1
Mike,
I agree that what you are saying is the general perception. But the figures I'm looking at indicate 963 civilians shot dead by police in 2016 and 63 police shot dead by civilians in the same year. (Does not include 3 accidental shootings, presumably self-inflicted or by another office. Total number killed on duty was 145.) That's a kill ratio of over 15 to 1 where gunfire was involved.
It seems that many officers are operating on the assumption you outline - that everybody is trying to shoot them. The cowboys and hunters of two-legged big game need to be weeded out.
I agree that what you are saying is the general perception. But the figures I'm looking at indicate 963 civilians shot dead by police in 2016 and 63 police shot dead by civilians in the same year. (Does not include 3 accidental shootings, presumably self-inflicted or by another office. Total number killed on duty was 145.) That's a kill ratio of over 15 to 1 where gunfire was involved.
It seems that many officers are operating on the assumption you outline - that everybody is trying to shoot them. The cowboys and hunters of two-legged big game need to be weeded out.
I too served on a grand jury for almost a month, there were 23 of us. As a grand juror you have subpoena power and we used it in a case, the prosecutor wasn't happy but we didn't care. We wanted to hear from more witnesses and we did. I found the experience empowering and somewhat rewarding whereas a regular juror you don't' have a voice in the proceedings until you deliberate. It was an experience I won't forget.
35
I truly admire your following your civic duties. I never served on a jury, having always managed to dodge this activity, but I salute and applaud your determination of independence and perseverance in it.
5
Tivw--I've been called 3 times in 16 years. But, daily proceedings were cancelled, every single time, and I ended up never serving, despite being available for 3 months.
5
Once a person is arrested he is as good as convicted. Break downs in our justice system have caused too many to be convicted of crimes they did not commit.
19
The grand jury is a legal anachronism, long abandoned in common law countries around the world. The issue of prosecutorial control --- indict a ham sandwich, but never a cop -- is only one reason. The secrecy, loss of basic procedural protections (5th amendment, right to counsel) are other inherent flaws.
Grand juries should be consigned to the ash heap. They no longer serve their original purpose of protecting citizens from the overwhelming power of the crown.
Grand juries should be consigned to the ash heap. They no longer serve their original purpose of protecting citizens from the overwhelming power of the crown.
9
Since the Grand Jury cannot convict, but only indict, the procedural protections you mention are unnecessary at this stage. The secrecy protects those brought up before the body and not indicted.
Would you prefer that the prosecutor have the right to indict anyone he wants, or to have the protection of a group of citizens reviewing his decisions? I, for one, prefer the latter.
Would you prefer that the prosecutor have the right to indict anyone he wants, or to have the protection of a group of citizens reviewing his decisions? I, for one, prefer the latter.
4
An independent grand jury was a great idea. The founders saw it as a bulwark between government and the individual. It has become illusory. The double jeopardy clause doesn't apply, so where a grand jury votes no bill there is nothing to stop a prosecutor from taking it to a different grand jury. In the federal system a United States Attorney can ask a judge to dissolve a grand jury and bring in another one, and that's what the judges do (more rubber stamping).
The Supreme Court held years ago that the grand jury portion of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states. Some states either don't have them or just don't bother. The prosecutor files an information, no judge or jury of citizens is involved in whether or not there is sufficient evidence (a judge does have to determine if there is probable cause to detain but that doesn't stop the prosecution from proceeding).
The Supreme Court held years ago that the grand jury portion of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states. Some states either don't have them or just don't bother. The prosecutor files an information, no judge or jury of citizens is involved in whether or not there is sufficient evidence (a judge does have to determine if there is probable cause to detain but that doesn't stop the prosecution from proceeding).
1
Thanks for sharing. That retired judge, every grand jury needs one. He was not only wise, he knew enough about how prosecutors operate (and probably seen enough ham sandwiches come and go through his courtroom) not to be intimidated.
7
We have a nation awash in guns. We have a culture that is fascinated with violence, both historically and in the media - as they say in the newsrooms, "If it bleeds, it leads (and sells advertising)". To be a policeman is to witness daily the worst in human nature - is it any wonder that even the best become hardened and adopt the boxing maxim, "protect yourself at all times"? The unspoken message to jurors charged with inditing a policeman is always, "What will it be - the police, imperfect as they might be, or the jungle?"
2
Interesting perspective of what happens behind the scenes. Next up is going to be juries who start to stand up to over prosecution of those not spared by rubber stamping grand juries.
1
If the Grand Jury pays attention to the facts, they will reach the best conclusion they can.
Castile was high on marijuana, according to the chemical tests on his blood.
Castile moved his hand toward his pocket, the same pocket where his gun was found. He was ordered to stop, and refused to do so.
The facts of the case, supported by the video and audio evidence, demonstrated to the Grand Jury that officer Yanez was not a murderer. The facts of the case, supported by the video and audio and forensic evidence, demonstrated to the Grand Jury that Castile was acting in defiance of police orders, and also acting stupidly by being high and driving with a gun in his pocket. How dumb do you have to be to think that was the right thing to do?
Castile was high on marijuana, according to the chemical tests on his blood.
Castile moved his hand toward his pocket, the same pocket where his gun was found. He was ordered to stop, and refused to do so.
The facts of the case, supported by the video and audio evidence, demonstrated to the Grand Jury that officer Yanez was not a murderer. The facts of the case, supported by the video and audio and forensic evidence, demonstrated to the Grand Jury that Castile was acting in defiance of police orders, and also acting stupidly by being high and driving with a gun in his pocket. How dumb do you have to be to think that was the right thing to do?
5
I have said it before and will repeat myself ad nauseam. A broken tail light (Philando Castille) should not lead to a death penalty. That young man was killed over a broken tail light. Maybe the officer stopping him was frightened but in the presence of fright there were other tactics he could have used. Backing off was one of them. In this day and age why should police who supposedly have better things to do even stop some one for a broken tail light? We have the means to take photo images of tail lights along with a license plate number. Send that imagery to the DMV and let them summons him to the office for the tail light or send him a warning in the mail. No need to stop him on the street & blow him away. The other benefits, the officer keeps his job, he gets to go deal with real crime, the "suspect" gets to go home alive. A win/win. I hate to think of what would happen should I have a broken tail light or summon the sheriff(I live in a rural area) & they show up, & proceed to gun me down. I know my kids would be filing law suits. But law suits don't resurrect people, the real loss. It's the blink of an eye response from some one with a gun in a position of power that is the issue. Damn, that tail light sure was important. Can't unshoot a gun.
The grand jury system will turn when some one on the jury has an experience with like the Castille case. Don't get me wrong I support my local sheriff, but said sheriff better be concerned about lives not shooting a gun.
The grand jury system will turn when some one on the jury has an experience with like the Castille case. Don't get me wrong I support my local sheriff, but said sheriff better be concerned about lives not shooting a gun.
38
Just this summer my friend and I had reason to research one of the most botched grand jury decisions in Robertson County history-the murder of Henry Marshall, the man who was investigating Billy Sol Estes and LBJ and some shady wheeling and dealing involving cotton allotments. My friend's dad was the foreman of the grand jury, and her grandfather the sheriff that ruled Marshall's death suicide from several shotgun blasts to the chest. Both of our lawyer children at almost the exact moment ask us questions about the incident, prompting us to do some research and reach back into our childhood memories. My friend told the story that her dad always said it was Dr. Jachimczyk, the Harris County medical examiner who convinced him that it was suicide. Robertson County is nicknamed Booger County for a good reason!
My husband sat on a grand jury in Midland County a couple of years ago and had a similar experience as yours with a drug case. In this instance, a policeman planted a small amount of cocaine in his patrol car and blamed it on a woman who was arrested on a DWI. I could continue, but you already know the stories....
My husband sat on a grand jury in Midland County a couple of years ago and had a similar experience as yours with a drug case. In this instance, a policeman planted a small amount of cocaine in his patrol car and blamed it on a woman who was arrested on a DWI. I could continue, but you already know the stories....
11
Britain abandoned the grand jury long ago. So should the US.
15
To Sequel,
Of the "common law" countries, all have scrapped the grand jury system except the US and Liberia. The individual states are free to do so, but I believe only two, Conn. and Pa, have for all criminal cases. A "probable cause" hearing in front of a judge is a far more effective and fairer system
Of the "common law" countries, all have scrapped the grand jury system except the US and Liberia. The individual states are free to do so, but I believe only two, Conn. and Pa, have for all criminal cases. A "probable cause" hearing in front of a judge is a far more effective and fairer system
2
Fifteen years ago I sat on the grand jury of my county for a summer. Every other Wednesday for 3 months I reported to the courthouse to do my duty as a citizen. I'd never sat on any kind of jury before and I thought it would be fascinating. Instead it was one of the most frightening experiences of my life.
I learned that almost any action that a human being can take, no matter how innocent, can be construed as illegal behavior. I learned that, as has been famously said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Well, in my county, the grand jury will indict a slice of ham, no need for two pieces of bread. Over the course of those 3 months I was the only person who voted not to indict or to ask questions of the witnesses. The rest of them were rubber-stampers. No thinking was necessary and when I questioned whether we should be giving this more effort I was told by my fellow grand-jurors that "If he/she's not guilty it'll come out in court." Right...And that thinking totally ignores the fact that simply getting indicted negatively impacts the accused's life -- guilty or innocent he or she must then pony up for an attorney and if they're employed they're probably going to lose their job.
The prosecutor is not supposed to influence the decision of the grand jurors in any way. We had one case where the prosecutor did everything but beg us not to indict. Once again, I was the only no vote.
I wish I could afford to get the hell out of this county when I retire.
I learned that almost any action that a human being can take, no matter how innocent, can be construed as illegal behavior. I learned that, as has been famously said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Well, in my county, the grand jury will indict a slice of ham, no need for two pieces of bread. Over the course of those 3 months I was the only person who voted not to indict or to ask questions of the witnesses. The rest of them were rubber-stampers. No thinking was necessary and when I questioned whether we should be giving this more effort I was told by my fellow grand-jurors that "If he/she's not guilty it'll come out in court." Right...And that thinking totally ignores the fact that simply getting indicted negatively impacts the accused's life -- guilty or innocent he or she must then pony up for an attorney and if they're employed they're probably going to lose their job.
The prosecutor is not supposed to influence the decision of the grand jurors in any way. We had one case where the prosecutor did everything but beg us not to indict. Once again, I was the only no vote.
I wish I could afford to get the hell out of this county when I retire.
74
The only thing worse than a criminal cop is an immortal prosecutor. When the two collude it's called American justice.
4
As long as a policeman says he feared for his life or safety he'll be exonerated. And since most are always fearful, more so when the person stopped is black, end of story.
4
When I was called for Grand Jury duty, I was one of seven out of the entire pool who did not ask for a hardship (job, elder or child care commitments) and I assumed that my participation would be greeted with cries of joy.
Instead, when I approached the bench, the judge frowned at my information sheet, and asked only one question about it. She wanted to know what field my Ph.d was in.
When I responded 'Eighteenth Century English Literature', the judge literally rolled her eyes and then nodded to the prosecutor.
I was then dismissed.
Speaking about the experience to other over educated friends, I have learned that the fastest way to become excused from Grand Jury duty is to have an inquiring mind.
Apparently, that gums up the judicial works.
Our criminal justice system is badly in need of reform.
Instead, when I approached the bench, the judge frowned at my information sheet, and asked only one question about it. She wanted to know what field my Ph.d was in.
When I responded 'Eighteenth Century English Literature', the judge literally rolled her eyes and then nodded to the prosecutor.
I was then dismissed.
Speaking about the experience to other over educated friends, I have learned that the fastest way to become excused from Grand Jury duty is to have an inquiring mind.
Apparently, that gums up the judicial works.
Our criminal justice system is badly in need of reform.
96
I served on a Federal Grand Jury years ago. Federal Grand jurors are selected from jurors called on the first week of the month, and is almost impossible to be excused from. So much for adage "Do you want your fate decided by 12 people who could not get out of jury duty"
Most of the cases were gun cases. It seems that in NYS if a person is found in possession of hand gun and that gun is not manufactured in NYS, and there are no hand guns manufactured in NYS, you can bring federal gun charges against that person. For the most part we took the word of NYC police officers. Only one case was there feeling among the jurors that this person should not be indited. No crime was committed and the gun was not linked to any crime. It involved a van stoped for a broken tail light and a passenger in the van had a gun. He had a criminal record, but the crime was committed 15 years ago and had been clean since. We determined that he was just carrying the gun for protection, but we indited anyway. The only other case where the jury did not rubber stamp, was a drugs case where the prosecutor tried to double count the amount of drugs to increase the degree of the charge. We had the him come back with a lesser charge.
Most of the cases were gun cases. It seems that in NYS if a person is found in possession of hand gun and that gun is not manufactured in NYS, and there are no hand guns manufactured in NYS, you can bring federal gun charges against that person. For the most part we took the word of NYC police officers. Only one case was there feeling among the jurors that this person should not be indited. No crime was committed and the gun was not linked to any crime. It involved a van stoped for a broken tail light and a passenger in the van had a gun. He had a criminal record, but the crime was committed 15 years ago and had been clean since. We determined that he was just carrying the gun for protection, but we indited anyway. The only other case where the jury did not rubber stamp, was a drugs case where the prosecutor tried to double count the amount of drugs to increase the degree of the charge. We had the him come back with a lesser charge.
4
If this were the only way invidious bias and discrimination existed in the system it would be a small matter. Problem is, this is the tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors, Police and the elected officials - who supposedly are ultimately responsible for managing these public employees - do not really understand the poison that spreads through a community when it is obvious there will be no such thing as equal justice.
25
grand juries r a prosecutors show from the get go. it's famously been said that a good prosecutor can get an indictment for a ham sandwich if that's what he wants. one person is not as influential as they might think.
I was a public defender in N.J. when called for grand jury. When asked what I did I said I worked for the state [ because this was in Trento this was a very common answer and their were no follow up questions ].I found the prosecutors totally unprepared [ even indicting under the wrong statute ] and the grand jurors always ready to indict. Often saying that any questions about probable cause [ their duty to determine ] could be resolved at trial. They often said that a suspect who asked for a lawyer had something to hid and they would indict. As a criminal defense lawyer I found the grand jury totally under the power of the prosecutor and it should be done away with. let a judge determine probable cause.
29
Many years ago I served on a Grand Jury in New Jersey. The experience was enjoyable as was the exposure to how our laws worked. The comment "how Walmart ever made a profit" was comically a reminder. The DA who presented the cases expected us to indite in most cases. It became obvious after several days that the bulk of the cases involved Sears & Roebuck. Finally the Jury told the DA not bring any more Sears cases to us. We were not going to be a collection agency for them.
12
As long as jurors are willing to ignore the Bill of Rights, ingrained in the U.S. constitution, police will be emboldened. And there will be more cases like what happened to the Australian woman in Minneapolis.
Yannis, who got away with murdering Philando Castile, in the same area close to Minneapolis most likely emboldened Officer Noor to first shoot without properly assessing the scene then deal with consequences later. Even more disturbing the law there allows him to clam up and not speak to investigators. That gives a state actor even more reason to abuse his authority. Grand jurors and petit jurors ought to realize the reason why the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights to guard against an abusive government. The fact that they see the police solely as crime fighters risking their lives and not an arm of the government that could potentially abuse their power will continue to fuel aggressive police shootings with impunity. And people in places like Australia, and other parts of the world, will see America as a police state that is unaccountable to the people but as one with powerful police unions that can intimidate politicians.
Yannis, who got away with murdering Philando Castile, in the same area close to Minneapolis most likely emboldened Officer Noor to first shoot without properly assessing the scene then deal with consequences later. Even more disturbing the law there allows him to clam up and not speak to investigators. That gives a state actor even more reason to abuse his authority. Grand jurors and petit jurors ought to realize the reason why the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights to guard against an abusive government. The fact that they see the police solely as crime fighters risking their lives and not an arm of the government that could potentially abuse their power will continue to fuel aggressive police shootings with impunity. And people in places like Australia, and other parts of the world, will see America as a police state that is unaccountable to the people but as one with powerful police unions that can intimidate politicians.
28
I served on a New York grand jury several years ago and am in complete agreement with Mimi Swartz. I was totally appalled by the attitude of the prosecutors, which was unfortunately shared by most of my fellow grand jurors (and many of the commenters on this article), that we should indict everyone whose case was brought before us because, after all, they could go to trial to establish their innocence in court. This ignored the burden faced by defendants who have to go to trial, especially those who were forced to rot in Rikers while awaiting trial. My attitude (which unfortunately was not the prevalent one on my grand jury) was that it was our duty to seriously consider what was brought before us, even recognizing the lower standard of proof for an indictment as opposed to a conviction.
43
I've been on two grand juries, the first in Schenectady County, the second in Manhattan. The cases were of similar type. In Schenectady, we were told our powers: we could subpoena anyone related to the case. An ADA spoke to us every morning, and answered our questions. We were free to question those appearing before us.
In Manhattan, as the saying goes, we got no respect: A fairly bored judge who never looked up as he gave us our first instructions. No ADA to answer questions. Any questions we put to those appearing before us had to be whispered to the presenting ADA, who would decide if the question was appropriate, and even rephrase the question.
Probably in the end, the results were the same; that's hard to say. But to this day, I feel I was a part of something bigger in the upstate grand jury; in this city, I feel I was just a cog in the wheel.
In Manhattan, as the saying goes, we got no respect: A fairly bored judge who never looked up as he gave us our first instructions. No ADA to answer questions. Any questions we put to those appearing before us had to be whispered to the presenting ADA, who would decide if the question was appropriate, and even rephrase the question.
Probably in the end, the results were the same; that's hard to say. But to this day, I feel I was a part of something bigger in the upstate grand jury; in this city, I feel I was just a cog in the wheel.
33
I served in New York County on a Grand Jury hearing narcotics cases and had the same frustrating experience with the proceedings. The ADAs controlled the questioning, prohibiting Grand Jurors from posing their own questions and, in my personal experience, misstating the requested question that I was required to whisper in the ear of the ADA. Grand jurors were not able to meaningfully deliberate after the presentation of evidence and the results were universally indictments. It was an assembly line process where the Grand Jurors had no meaningful input or role. It is also a process that I believe is unsupported by the governing statute, so that it might be argued that it violates the rights of criminal defendants.
6
Mimi should write more about the legal industry in Texas; she's correct about Ms. Ogg, who is the same as she was in college.
21
In my recent experience as a Dallas County Grand Juror, I found that there are usually at least a couple of people jurors who- either being uncomfortable with the idea of being what they fear is a "rubber stamp", or a simple inability to decouple from the petit jury's "reasonable doubt" standard- try to make cases more difficult than they need to be. All you need to ask is, was a crime committed? And is it likely that it was committed by this person? Anything beyond that is a matter for the trial jury. I can't tell you how frustrated most of us became, day after day, when, inevitably, someone wanted to ask question after question that could help establish guilt or innocence, but had nothing whatsoever to do with the already clearly established facts that a crime had been committed and this person was the one who committed it. Some people just can't seem to be comfortable indicting someone unless they meet their own personal standard of reasonable doubt. The reason it feels "rubber stampy" is because the police and the DA have already weeded out the cases that don't get to a grand jury because they're clearly not likely to get a conviction. It isn't rocket science, and it certainly isn't Perry Mason. It's most boring and routine and the cases are presented in a logical, factual manner to answer only two questions: was a crime committed, and did this person commit it? All other nuance or considerations should be left for a jury in a criminal trial.
10
Dear Tad--The logical conclusion of your argument is that Grand Juries serve no purpose. I have served on two grand juries. Indictment is a life changing event. When I am asked to make such a decision, I will make it myself and ask all questions I need to do the job to the best of my ability. Other wise, why even ask me?
49
A grand jury's role is to be a check on the state's power. The police and prosecutors are human and make mistakes. They also have powerful incentives to pursue convictions (mostly via plea deals). A person who is indicted will likely never see a jury, but instead plead guilty based on flimsy evidence because prosecutors overcharge and politicians enact disproportionate penalties. Better to plead and get 1 year than go to trial and get 10.
"Gumming up the works" is the grand jury's entire job.
"Gumming up the works" is the grand jury's entire job.
47
Even more fascinating insight. So anyone you sent to trial found not guilty? Anyone ever exonerated after you answered your two questions?
4
Get rid of juries and have three judges hear and determine each and every case. They are smarter and understand the issues and how to vote on them; juries do not. There is also too much preferential selection of people by color, occupation, whether they are conservative or liberal, etc. All of it unfair, senseless, and a huge time waster along with monetary nightmare for the courts.
24
Every proposed solution to an issue come with their own pros and cons. Your suggestion has its merits. But we must weigh those against the weaknesses. The most glaring here are the potential for politics to determine who those 3 judges would be and at the same time making the process less transparent to the public. These two problems are a part of the price we decided to pay for freedom and democracy goinng all the way back to the American Revolution.
Dont stop considering the merits of your ideas but identify the weaknesses not simply to see someone else's perspective but to inform yourself before, or even after, coming to a conclusion.
Dont stop considering the merits of your ideas but identify the weaknesses not simply to see someone else's perspective but to inform yourself before, or even after, coming to a conclusion.
9
The author was talking about the grand jury, which does not participate in trials. It sounds like you want to "get rid of" petit juries, which are the juries that determine guilt in a trial. If so, you have a hard row to hoe, seeking to repeal that part of the Sixth Amendment. And if you want to "get rid of" grand juries, as well, you will also be working to repeal part of the Fifth Amendment. I hope you like challenges!!
1
You might want to check this thing called the Sixth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment
1
The public has little understanding of the grand jury, and that leads to a lot of confusion. I was a federal prosecutor for about 20 years and brought more than 100 cases before the grand jury.
What the writer does not know is that, in most districts, there are two kinds of grand juries. When a case appears open and shut, the case agent will be the only witness and will give a summary account designed to quickly convince the grand jurors. This is clearly not the most jus way to go., Rather, it is designed to streamline a system that cannot possibly offer a full hearing to everyone charged.
The great majority of suspects are judged by this summary process. The system depends on the good judgment of the prosecutor in assessing the strength of the case.. This doesn't deliver perfect justice ,But perfection in the process is impossible.
What is little known, is that on the tough cases, the prosecutor does give a full hearing because these cases are dicey and the prosecutor needs to know what the grand jurors think. These cases are generally left to the free discretion of the grand jury because the prosecutors are simply uncertain. Many officer shootings are brought before these kind of grand juries, along with most complex and uncertain cases.The grand juries involved are little known so-called investigative grand juries. In a typical case all the evidence will be presented as in a jury trial.. And the grand jurors will render their verdict as in a jury trial.
What the writer does not know is that, in most districts, there are two kinds of grand juries. When a case appears open and shut, the case agent will be the only witness and will give a summary account designed to quickly convince the grand jurors. This is clearly not the most jus way to go., Rather, it is designed to streamline a system that cannot possibly offer a full hearing to everyone charged.
The great majority of suspects are judged by this summary process. The system depends on the good judgment of the prosecutor in assessing the strength of the case.. This doesn't deliver perfect justice ,But perfection in the process is impossible.
What is little known, is that on the tough cases, the prosecutor does give a full hearing because these cases are dicey and the prosecutor needs to know what the grand jurors think. These cases are generally left to the free discretion of the grand jury because the prosecutors are simply uncertain. Many officer shootings are brought before these kind of grand juries, along with most complex and uncertain cases.The grand juries involved are little known so-called investigative grand juries. In a typical case all the evidence will be presented as in a jury trial.. And the grand jurors will render their verdict as in a jury trial.
19
I served for a two week term on the first kind of grand jury you described. Simple cases, the vast majority drug-related, lots of burglary, robbery, forged checks. We had a case agent/police officer come in and quickly tell us about the facts of his/her arrest. Sometimes they would tell us about two or three cases they had worked that we were to decide. Then the officer would leave and we would vote yes or no on an indictment. We covered more than 300 cases per week and I think it was "yes" on all of them. I felt pressure to not ask too many questions and not prolong the process, like this was just a formality, no big deal. I don't know if there is a better way, but this was emotionally grueling for me. I felt bad for each of those indicted. The grand jury was made up of middle-class, relatively stable people with good lives. As we went through this process of listening to case after case, some of the jurors started making light of those we were indicting, It was easy to do because we really had no time to think of these people as real souls with a family, kids, a life, feelings, and maybe a past that left them with disadvantages that the rest of us had never experienced. I would vote to indict because it was the right thing to do, they broke the law. But, spending two weeks immersed in that environment of one class, seemingly superficially and sometimes light-mindedly judging and indicting another class, was heart-wrenching for me.
4
@ Nancy. Did they break the law in each case though? You were told that they did and no doubt did what you believed to be right. But what functional purpose does a grand jury really serve if what you say is true other than to provide cover for the prosecutor? The NYTimes has a story right now about police in Baltimore planting drugs. Amazingly enough it was caught on a body camera!
1
As a NYC Assistant District Attorney, I worked Supreme Court Bureau Grand Jury Division 14 months, presenting on average four cases a day.
Beyond their third day, here is no place for jurors to enquire more deeply than the facts as presented by the Prosecutor.
The Question Presented is not Conviction, but Indictment, transferring the case to a Trial Part for such in-dept analysis.
In the 1000 cases I presented, I cannot recall a single Grand Jury Decision that was inappropriate; this from a person who believes that an ADA and a Criminal Defense Attorney hold the same Oath - To Serve Justice.
Beyond their third day, here is no place for jurors to enquire more deeply than the facts as presented by the Prosecutor.
The Question Presented is not Conviction, but Indictment, transferring the case to a Trial Part for such in-dept analysis.
In the 1000 cases I presented, I cannot recall a single Grand Jury Decision that was inappropriate; this from a person who believes that an ADA and a Criminal Defense Attorney hold the same Oath - To Serve Justice.
9
Wow. First the article, then a comment by someone else who served on a grand jury and now this one by a prosecutor. The arrogance that "here is no place for jurors to enquire more deeply than the facts as presented by the Prosecutor" is stunningly fightening. Why have a grand jury at all then? Sounds like the oath is not to serve justice but just to win regardless of all the facts.
5
Look at the Mirror again and tell us what you see.
4
BK,
Grand Juries only indict. They don't try the case which is when the details come out. That is what a petty jury does.
I have been on several serious criminal cases in Manhattan including one with a defendant who should not have been indicted, but it was a high-profile murder case. The jurors didn't hesitate to find the defendant "not guilty."
That was, of course, in NYC where the police aren't held in so much high-esteem even by us upper-middle-class folks.
I suggest that everyone sit on a jury in a criminal trial before having an opinion about the system.
Grand Juries only indict. They don't try the case which is when the details come out. That is what a petty jury does.
I have been on several serious criminal cases in Manhattan including one with a defendant who should not have been indicted, but it was a high-profile murder case. The jurors didn't hesitate to find the defendant "not guilty."
That was, of course, in NYC where the police aren't held in so much high-esteem even by us upper-middle-class folks.
I suggest that everyone sit on a jury in a criminal trial before having an opinion about the system.
Setting aside the problematic issues with police indictments, the system in NY County is, at its core, outrageous: Racist and classist. In my situation, those on the hot seat were all poor, Black and/or Hispanic. I don't know where priviliged White people go to get indicted, but it's not in this county.
The ADA's were barely out of law school. I complained to one that he'd illegally introduced a "prior" into evidence. "But I got away with it," he said, laughing.
After two days I was so distressed at the rubber stamping, despite my all-out attempt to slow things down, I was unable to sleep. I begged, to no avail, to be switched to petit jury. I then fought to see the supervising judge at Hogan Plaza to explain my position. I was brought up to her courtoom. Within 5 minutes, the ADA returned from the judge's chambers to say that I was released. He said that she understood my upset. He also said that she knew my family. So, while I was relieved to get out of there, it also proved my point: Special treatment for privileged white people.
In lieu of this system, why not do as half the country does–use a preliminary trial judge?