Tag Archives: grand juries

legal news, local news, national news, political news

Now it’s the grand jury system under attack

Grand juries do an important task within the criminal justice system.

They hear evidence from prosecutors and then decide whether a criminal complaint merits an indictment, which is a formal accusation of a crime that needs to be decided by the courts.

Now, though, the grand jury “system” has come under attack as it relates to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Donald Trump campaigned had an improper relationship with Russian government hackers seeking to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

Who are the attackers? I’ve heard it come from right-wing talking heads on conservative media outlets. For example, Sean Hannity of Fox News said the grand jury that Mueller has impaneled is inherently biased against Trump. Hannity echoes the president’s description of Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt.”

Fascinating, yes? Sure it is. These are the same fools who called for grand jury investigations into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s missing e-mails. This is the “lock her up!” crowd that didn’t give a damn about any presumption of innocence and wanted a grand jury to find a reason to imprison the former U.S. senator, secretary of state and 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

These individuals make me want to puke.

***

I now want to say a few words about the grand jury system.

It’s not perfect, but it works. Indeed, I have some intimate knowledge of the Texas grand jury system. I served on a grand jury for three months here in Randall County. I was asked to serve by a jury commissioner who was picked by 181st District Judge John Board; the jury commissioner, a friend of mine, was tasked with finding qualified individuals to serve on a grand jury.

I eventually was seated on the grand jury and we met in Canyon each week. We heard complaints brought to us by law enforcement. It was an educational process to be sure. Did we indict every criminal suspect named in a complaint? Hardly.

We would hear from prosecutors who would explain the circumstances surrounding the complaint. We would ask questions of them, talk among ourselves and then decide whether to issue an indictment. It was clean, simple and most importantly, it was done honestly and in good faith.

Granted, the stakes involved in our list of hearings fall far, far, far short of what awaits the grand jury that will consider the assorted Donald J. Trump matters that Robert Mueller will bring forward.

It angers me in the extreme, though, to hear partisan, talking-head hacks disparage for political purposes a segment of our criminal justice system that can — and does — bring great value to the delivering of justice.

State news

Texas set to welcome grand jury reform

Grand juries do important work.

They determine whether individuals have committed a crime worth prosecuting. They receive criminal complaints, listen to evidence presented by prosecutors, occasionally call witnesses … and then grand jurors deliberate among themselves about the fate of the individual named in the complaint.

Do they prosecute or do they decide there’s insufficient evidence to follow through?

It’s important, but it’s not rocket science. It does not require special training. And to be chosen for a grand jury, one need not rely on judges picking jury commissioners, who then select their friends, acquaintances or professional associates to serve on the grand jury.

The state’s antiquated grand jury selection system is set to change effective Sept. 1. Texas will allow grand juries to be chosen by the same method it chooses trial juries.

The Legislature enacted a bill, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, that eliminates the “pick a pal” system that critics said left the old system open to possible conflict of interest. If a judge wants to “get” someone, he or she can pick jury commissioners who then can look for individuals to serve on the grand jury who might be disposed to follow through with the judge’s desire.

Is such a scenario rampant in Texas? I haven’t heard of it. But the random selection method, where grand juror are picked from voter registration rolls, eliminates the possibility of stacking a grand jury.

“It sort of cancels out the previous system whereby the judges simply picked people that he or she knows or feels comfortable with, and I think we’ve seen the result of that,” said Douglas Smith, a policy analyst for the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. “Grand juries tend to be white, they tend to be older, so they tend not to represent the broader perspectives in the community.”

And so, with a random selection method enacted, grand juries perhaps can more accurately reflect the communities they serve.

This is a needed reform of the Texas criminal justice system.

 

legal news, local news, State news

Grand jury reform arrives in Texas

Way back when I arrived in Texas, in 1984, the newspaper where I started working had just begun an editorial campaign to change the way the state impaneled grand juries.

The Jefferson County criminal justice system had come under fire over suspicions that a grand jury might have been seated to get back at political foes of a district judge. Our newspaper, the Beaumont Enterprise, disliked the jury commissioner system and we called for a change to select grand juries the way the state seats trial juries — using the voter registration rolls.

We finally persuaded the county’s two criminal district judges to adopt a random selection method.

Well, this week, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that makes it a requirement to seat grand juries in a random method.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/19/abbott-signs-grand-jury-reform-legislation/

It’s a good day for the state’s criminal justice system.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “Under House Bill 2150, the state will no longer use the outdated system that lets judge-appointed commissioners pick jurors, a nationally uncommon practice that critics say is rife with potential for conflicts of interest.”

The old system allowed judges to pick jury commissioners, usually friends, to find grand jurors. It’s been called a “pick a pal” system. Friends pick friends, who then might be friends with the judge whose court has jurisdiction.

The “potential for conflicts of interest” surely did exist.

I once served on a grand jury, in Randall County, that was picked by the old method. We had an uneventful term, meeting every other week for several months. I learned a lot about my community.

My participation as a grand juror, though, all but eliminated me from consideration for a trial jury, District Attorney James Farren told us, as we then would be seen as “pro-prosecution” by defense counsel.

That’s fine.

But I’m still quite glad to see the Texas Legislature enact this long-needed reform, which follows the model used in the vast majority of other states.

If a randomly selected trial jury is qualified to sentence someone to death, then a randomly selected grand jury ought to be qualified to determine whether the crime should be prosecuted in the first place.

legal news, local news, State news

Texas grand jury system under review

The Texas criminal justice system has this strange idea about how to select trial juries and grand juries.

Grand jurors are chosen in most counties by jury commissioners, who are selected by a presiding judge; the commissioners then look for people they believe are “qualified” to serve on a panel that determines whether a criminal complaint should result in officials charges brought against someone. The issue is whether a grand juror can commit to meet over the course of several weeks to make these determinations.

Trial jurors are selected at random. District clerks go through voter registration rolls to find people whose names are put into a large pool of potential jurors. The only qualification is that they be residents of the county and be of sound mind, etc.

Here’s an interesting aspect of the selection processes. The state believes it is fine to select someone at random, and then ask that person to determine whether some lives or dies if that individual is convicted of a capital crime. But a grand jury requires more of a screening process to find individuals who can serve on that panel.

Texas legislators are considering a bill that would make the grand jury selection system look more like the trial jury selection method.

I say, “Go for it, lawmakers.”

Back in 1984, when I arrived in Texas, the newspaper where I worked at the time, the Beaumont Enterprise, was involved in an editorial campaign to change the grand jury selection system. There had been questions raised about whether a particular grand jury had been chosen because grand jurors had a particular bias. The paper raised all kinds of heck with the two judges in Jefferson County with criminal jurisdiction. We argued vehemently that the system needed to be changed. Over time, the judges heeded our calls and changed to a random selection method.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, thinks the state should require a random method in all 254 Texas counties.

He says the system needs total confidence in all its working parts. As The Associated Press reported, the current system is ridiculed as a “pick a pal” system in which friends pick friends to serve on a grand jury.

Now, for the record, I once served on a grand jury in Randall County. I was asked by a friend, who was serving as a jury commissioner for the 181st District Court, presided over by Judge John Board.

I agreed. Board chose me along with several other people and we met regularly for three months. We confronted no controversy during our time and our service ended without a whimper of discontent.

That particular grand jury worked well. The threat, though, of dysfunction created by potential bias has created a need for the Texas Legislature to change the selection system.

If the random selection method is able to seat people who then can determine whether someone should die for committing a crime, then it will work to select people who can decide whether to charge someone with a crime.

 

political news, State news

Governor had no business demanding resignation

Dave Kemp is a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer who works in the public sector.

He knows Texas law better than most folks, including me. He put something on Facebook today about Gov. Rick Perry’s indictment that is worth sharing here.

Kemp writes: “There is a lot of spin going on involving the Governor’s felony indictments. Here are my observations: 1. Whether or not the Travis County DA should have resigned is not the question. The question is did the governor violate the Texas Penal Code by trying to force her to resign. Therefore, Perry should stop trashing Ms. Lehmberg, who has paid the price for her own criminal conduct – she pled guilty and served jail time. And a removal suit against her was unsuccessful. So … focus on your own conduct, Governor. 2. What business it is of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for. The governor had no responsibility for the DA’s conduct. We must conclude that at best he was using bullying tactics that he would condemn if a Washington politician tried using. 3. What collateral damage did the governor do by cutting the funding for the Public Integrity Unit? It certainly didn’t harm the DA. But it could have harmed other criminal investigations. The veto was an irresponsible act.”

The most interesting element in this post is contained smack in the middle of it.

“What business is it of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for.”

A grand jury indicted Perry on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion. He demanded that Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg resign after her drunk-driving conviction. If she didn’t do as he demanded, he then threatened to veto money for the public integrity unit her office operates. She didn’t quit; he vetoed the money.

Kemp’s point is a valid one.

Gov. Perry became entangled in what essentially is a local political matter. I agree that Lehmberg behaved badly; she broke the law and should have resigned. I said so, too, at the time. She didn’t listen to me, either.

However, for the governor to then carry this fight further speaks to political bullying.

It’s been reported that other DAs have been accused of drunk driving, but we heard nary a peep out of the governor’s office. This one is different. Lehmberg is a Democrat, Perry is a Republican, and Lehmberg’s office was looking into some allegations against key GOP allies of the governor.

It’s been speculated that Perry’s interest in Lehmberg’s drunk-driving case had everything to do with how he could remove a partisan nemesis.

Yes, politics can be a nasty affair. I’m betting Gov. Perry is going to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

 

 

Uncategorized

Retirement in name only

Let’s call Mike McGee’s departure as head of the Amarillo Animal Control operation what it is: a “retirement” in name only.

McGee didn’t “retire” the way most of us understand the term. He was shoved out, asked to leave, perhaps told to hit the road.

By my way of seeing things, he should have gotten the boot when allegations erupted over mistreatment of animals that were being euthanized at the shelter.

City Manager Jarrett Atkinson put McGee and his chief deputy, Shannon Barlow, on “administrative leave,” meaning they were getting paid while letting someone else do their job — and while a Randall County grand jury investigated whether to indict anyone for criminal wrongdoing.

Well, McGee is gone. His “retirement,” announced Thursday, is effective today. Interesting, eh?

The fact that the city implemented serious changes in the euthanasia methods for unwanted animals carries the implication that the former way was wrong, if not illegal. Who was responsible for that? The guy in charge … McGee. Let’s throw Barlow into that category as well.

And when the guy in charge is running a publicly funded operation in a way that cries out for change, that suggests he isn’t doing his job. Isn’t that correct? Thus, he and his top assistant both should have been canned.

Now he’s “retired.” McGee’s troubles might not be over. The grand jury is supposed to decide perhaps by June 11 whether to indict anyone for crimes involving the Animal Control Department. McGee and Barlow appear to be the individuals on the hot seat.

This story appears to be far from over.