Exploring the Grand Jury - Part 3 of 4

So far in this series of articles, I've tried to give readers a very brief look at the 900 year history of the Grand Jury and how it came to be used in The United States. I've tried to explain how a Grand Jury is formed, some of the procedures that are common in today's Grand Jury, the rules and rituals involved with hearing a case and some of the other responsibilities that the Grand Jury is charged with.

The Grand Jury is said to stand between the accuser and the accused and are not intended to try a case on its merits, but rather decide whether or not there is enough evidence to support the charges. If they decide there is enough supporting evidence, the Grand Jury returns an indictment and the accused is formally charged with the crime.

One thing that many Grand Juries aren't particularly aware of is that they don't answer to the District Attorney or the Court. While the prosecutor is available to answer questions and assist the Grand Jury in many ways, they are in no way controlled by anyone. If a grand jury chooses to disregard the advice or counsel of the prosecutor, they become known as a runaway grand jury.

A runaway grand jury is one that makes its own decisions. Popular in the early 1900's as a way to get around corruption, most Grand Jurors today don't know they can act independently of what the prosecutor desires, especially if they suspect the prosecutor may be showing favoritism. I've turned up one recent case in California in which a State Grand Jury returned indictments on most of the county officials in one county, and nearly shut the county down altogether. I suspect most runaway Grand Juries are the result of being unable to permeate a close knit group of powerful people looking out for one another when suspected of wrong-doing.

As I've researched for these articles, I've come to realize how difficult it is to prove wrongdoing or corruption. The smoking gun, if there is one, is locked in the secrecy of what happens behind closed doors. But even without a smoking gun, common sense in most cases, allows us to put two and two together and realize something is not right.

A recent case was heard by the Maury County, Tennessee Grand Jury, in which their findings appeared to be inconsistent with the testimony given. Not only was their decision odd, so were many of the circumstances leading up to their findings.

Names will not be used in this part of the series in order to protect the innocent. Although I've eliminated all doubt from my mind, that something suspicious has taken place, I am lacking in hard evidence that any wrong-doing has occurred.

The case stems from an alleged domestic abuse situation in which a husband reportedly physically assaulted his wife for over an hour at their home on the outskirts of town. According to testimony given at a hearing in General Session's court, the alleged attack included choking, kicking, hair pulling, scalding and lots of items being thrown. The husband also threatened, according to the testimony, to electrocute and also kill his wife with his bare hands and then bury her where she would never be found. There are a lot more gruesome details of the incident in the testimony, but they would add nothing to this article, therefore I won't waste your time.

Several times throughout the incident, the husband supposedly told his wife that he could do anything he wanted to her and get away with it! Why? Because his Uncle, who holds a couple of positions of considerable power and influence in the local government, would make sure he never got prosecuted, according to the testimony. Those assertions could be attributed to words one might say during the heat of an argument and might normally be discounted as such. In fact, most of the testimony given by the wife could probably be chalked up to a woman scorned. At least one must consider this possibility before jumping to conclusions.

After listening to the wife's recorded testimony and talking to her on the phone however, I was convinced that her assertions and recounting of the assault were credible. Coming to this conclusion was made even easier when I spoke to the Sheriff's Deputy that responded to her call for help.

The Deputy told me that he took photos of the injuries inflicted on the wife, which included red marks around her neck consistent with someone who had been choked, as well as bruising on her arms that were consistent with someone being restrained against their will. The Deputy felt that after investigating the incident there was plenty of cause for him to arrest the accused on a charge of Aggravated Domestic Assault, which is a felony. He was held for a short time prior to paying a $5,000 bond and being released.

Nearly three months after the attack took place, the case was finally heard by a judge who found cause to bind the case over to the Grand Jury. The husbands influential Uncle attended the hearing also, and it was rumored that he asked the judge to dismiss the charges. The judge said that was not true and if the Uncle would have even tried such a maneuver, he would have immediately "nipped it in the bud." Nonetheless, the Uncle's appearance at the hearing could be attributed to concern for his nephew, or considered by some intimidation. In this report it qualifies as odd little coincidence number 1.

During the time between the initial hearing and the Grand Jury hearing, the Uncle had been observed by at least two witnesses in the vicinity of a rural General Store. He was allegedly heard telling someone that the matter regarding his nephew's aggravated domestic assault charge was "taken care of." This accusation is hearsay, which I was unable to confirm, but it will still hold the spot of odd little coincidence number 2.

The Grand Jury finally heard the case, nearly 4 and a half months after the incident took place. According to the wife, they heard the same testimony she gave the General Sessions judge, but did not have the photographs or the police report. The reason the pictures of the injuries and the arrest report weren't presented is because the arresting officer, who also was expected to serve as prosecutor wasn't present. Odd little coincidence number 3 is hereby noted.

Having been informed at the last minute that the grand jury was hearing this case, the arresting officer had to drive to the Sheriff's Department to retrieve the reports that he intended to present as testimony. Meanwhile, the victim finished giving her testimony and was waiting in the court house lobby with several friends and acquaintances, awaiting the arrival of the arresting officer.

This is where the odd little coincidences give way to a great, big, questionable, series of events.

The following events were related to me by the victim, and witnessed by two local business owners and a friend of the victim. I was also told an employee of the District Attorneys office was present, but it's not clear whether or not that person saw the following:

1. The Grand Jury Foreman came over and informed the victim she could go home. He said he would await the arrival of the arresting officer and get his testimony. Remaining jurors were still sequestered in the Grand Jury Courtroom.

2. At approximately the same time (within 1 minute), the Uncle of the defendant arrived at the courthouse and was noticed shaking the Jury Foreman's hand before he allegedly "pulled him into a side room of the courthouse and had a little talk with him about his nephew." ("Little room" later identified as Court Clerk's office). This was seen through a window in the door. What was said is unknown.

3. When the arresting officer, who by law should have presented the evidence as the prosecutor, arrived at the courthouse, he was advised by the Grand Jury Foreman that the case had already been taken care of and he was no longer needed. The Foreman also told the arresting officer that the grand jury had heard from the accused first… which is very uncommon… immediately followed by the victim giving her testimony.

Although several days would elapse prior to the Grand Jury's findings being released to the public, I was notified shortly after the jurors returned a no true bill that said they had decided against indicting the husband, thereby exonerating the accused of any wrong doing.

The concerned citizen that provided me with the anonymous tip, asked a couple of questions that deserve answers. The first one: "Why was the arresting officer never allowed to present his case or to show his evidence? He was the prosecutor and should have testified for the victim. The jury foreman was informed that the officer was en route and told the victim he would wait the few extra moments to get his testimony, so why didn't he?

Secondly: Why was the accused allowed to testify? This is only allowed in a Grand Jury if the accused has waived his 5th Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination or has been given immunity in exchange for his testimony.

I've lost count of the number of odd little coincidences I've come across in my investigation, but in my humble opinion, when you get many more than one, the coincidences start to bear a strong resemblance to planned occurrences.

In the fourth and final installment of this examination of the Grand Jury, I'll tell you what the Uncle said when I asked him if he was involved with any unethical behaviors as has been suggested. I'll also share with you why the Grand Jury Foreman claims that any tampering or influencing his Grand Jury would be virtually impossible.

Finally, I'll let you know what options are available to a victim of an alleged crime when or if the grand jury fails to call for an indictment of the accused. And I'll give you an update on what action the wife and victim in this article is taking in her search for justice.