What happens if a grand jury hearsa lot of evidence and decides not to indict? How much of the basis for their decision gets publicized?
[This is a general question but of specific relevance to the Michael Brown case, where a lot of people mistrust the prosecutor, and will not trust the mere announcement that there’s no indictment. OTOH, it’s been reported that many witnesses who back the cop’s version of events are afraid of community reaction to their testimony, so they would not be happy having their testimony publicized.]
Aren’t Grand Jury proceedings automatically sealed and confidential, even if there’s no indictment? I assume there’s some severe contempt penalties for violating that confidentiality?
The exact procedures are different from state to state. For instance in New Jersey if I testify to the grand jury and the case later goes to trial my testimony is discoverable. The defense can and will bring up my previous testimony during the trial.
I was on a grand jury once here in NJ. We were told that the deliberations and proceedings were secret: always, entirely and forever.
One reason was that we were not determining guilty/no-guilty, just whether there is enough evidence to charge someone. The accused is still considered innocent, and it would be unjust to spoil his/her reputation at this point. This is especially true if a No Bill is returned.
Another reason is that the accused might not even be in custody and the state does not want to risk he/she would flee the jurisdiction.
We heard many, many cases. Not once did the accused testify. Mostly it was police officers and detectives telling what they saw and heard. In one case there was a video of the accused at the police station, shown at his specific request. There was no indictment in that case.
IANAL - As I understood it, the Grand Jury was a hearing of the prosecutor’s evidence to see if here’s enough evidence to indict. As a result, the “defendant” has no standing, no lawyer to cross-examine witnesses and present contrary evidence, etc. If the prosecutor does not want a fifth-amendment claim, they simply do not put the prospective defendant(s) on the stand, but it is a good time to get the various witnesses on the record - so that they can be charged with perjury if they change their story, so they can be offered deals if they take the fifth, etc. It also ramps up the pressure on the accused to think about deals.
Since the GJ hears a very one-sided view of the evidence, the joke is they will indict a ham sandwich if the DA asks them to. So the DA can skew the evidence the other way too, to provide an excuse to not prosecute if that is what is wanted. “I didn’t decide to drop the case, the Grand Jury said there was not enough evidence.”
When I served on the GJ there was one case that the prosecution did want an indictment and didn’t get one. It was a close vote, but the majority of the jurors voted No Bill.
In the case where the video was shown, I don’t think the prosecution wanted an indictment, but I’m not positive.
ETA: Sometimes people ask why bother with a GJ if they almost always get an indictment anyway. The answer is that it keeps the prosecution from taking people to trial without reasonable evidence. We have no idea how many times they don’t proceed because they know perfectly well they’d never get past the GJ.
From what I’ve read, the prosecutor asked the judge to allow him to release the documents.
Another question is about the federal investigation looking into the same incident for possible civil rights violations. Are they in the same position as the general public WRT grand jury procedings, or do they get special access on account of their status?
The grand jury is a check on the state to make sure they do not proceed without at least probable cause. It is not as crucial as a trial but it is one extra hoop for the prosecution to jump through to ensure fairness.
A grand jury has also been used in other ways. Special grand juries have been convened as finders of fact. In this case (as has happened with many other police shootings throughout the country) all evidence was presented in order to put the matter of probable cause before a neutral party and remove the state from making what could be perceived as a biased decision. Imagine the outcry if the prosecutor reached this conclusion on his own without the grand jury.
Based on “news” reports of other high profile grand juries, I have been under the impression that the jurors are generally free to talk about the proceedings if they want to.
Upon further review (of my impressions)… maybe it is that those who testify are free to talk.