Exploring the Grand Jury - Part 4 of 4

Exploring the Grand Jury - Part I: Is This Justice?
Exploring the Grand Jury - Part II: Results of Secrecy
Exploring the Grand Jury - Part III: A True Story

I've had quite the inner struggle about how to approach this final article detailing the process of the Grand Jury and the part it plays in the legal system. The things I learn while conducting research for the articles I write are normally considered a benefit of the job. What I've learned about the Grand Jury has not only surprised me, but it's also scared me, and in some ways I've even been sickened by what I've found.

As a system of law that began nearly a thousand years ago, the grand jury concept was originally founded on good intentions. And in most ways, the powers of the Grand Jury are still being used prudently today. Unfortunately, because of some of the traditional protocol that dates back nearly a millennium, what once was regaled as "one of the greatest bulwarks of the liberty of the subject; instituted for the very purpose of preventing mischief being done by false accusers," has become an instrument of injustice when not properly utilized.

In part two of this series, the subject of secrecy as it applies to grand jury proceedings was discussed. Everything that takes place leading up to the findings of the grand jury is veiled in a thick blanket of secrecy. Furthermore, that secrecy is mandatory and a breech by anyone involved with the proceedings could result in felony charges. Not only does the Grand Jury not have to answer to anyone for their decisions, but they are forbidden by law to do so!

These 13 people, including the Grand Jury foreman, wield massive amounts of power. They have inquisitorial powers over and authority to indict anyone suspected of committing a crime. That power can be used to exonerate people suspected of criminal activity also. They have the unchecked authority to inspect any and all county properties and records, including prison facilities and the condition of the treasury. They are empowered to verify county officers are properly bonded and they may investigate any alleged abuse of office by state and local officers.

The Grand Jury has expansive powers and answer to nobody. The most frightening part of all this is that these are people randomly selected from the jury pool and have no special credentials to qualify them to evaluate or judge the people and situations they are responsible for. Perhaps it's just my rebellious nature, but I don't believe our elected government officials should even possess unchecked power of this magnitude! I'm definitely not confident that twelve laypersons should be trusted with it.

The case I wrote about in the third article of this series is a perfect case in point. There was an abundant amount of evidence indicating that a man had physically assaulted his wife. According to testimony given at the initial hearing of the accused, he told his wife he could do anything he wanted to her and get away with it because his Uncle had lots of political pull in Maury County, Tennessee.

The Deputy responding to the wife's call for help took photos of proof of the assault and felt there was enough evidence to arrest the husband and charge him with felony aggravated domestic assault. He was so sure of the assault he was prepared to prosecute the case in court. The judge at the initial hearing agreed that there was enough proof of the assault that he sent the case to the Grand Jury.

In the nearly two months that elapsed between the initial hearing and the convening of the Grand Jury, the husband's influential Uncle was heard telling people that he had gotten the charges taken care of. The day the Grand Jury convened, the Uncle was seen shaking hands with and having a private conversation with the Grand Jury Foreman while the 12 jurors deliberated. Also that day, the Deputy that was supposed to testify for the wife was not allowed to, but the accused was allowed to present testimony, which is not usually done for reasons associated with the 5th Amendment regarding self-incrimination.

I called the Grand Jury Foreman and asked him if he had spoken to the Uncle the day the Grand Jury met and he admitted to possibly exchanging pleasantries with him in the Clerk's office while he was making copies. He explained to me that although the foreman calls for the votes and assists with the deliberations in a hearing, he does not have a vote. He also claims that once testimony is given, no one, including the foreman is allowed out of the room until a unanimous decision is arrived at. This statement has been contradicted by four people who were present in the court house lobby that day.

When I asked the foreman if he thought members of the Grand Jury could be influenced by an intimidating, powerful community figure, he replied with an emphatic "NO!" Sensing that I had hit a nerve, I just listened as he explained that all 12 jurors must unanimously agree on a decision. He added that the possibility that all 12 members could be influenced by an outside source is "highly unlikely." I wondered if the odds were better of them being influenced by someone on the inside, but had an eerie feeling that I had worn out my welcome with the Grand Jury Foreman.

Due to the previously mentioned contradictions, I decided to ask the Uncle about the accusations that he had influenced the grand jury. He agreed to answer a couple questions so I began by asking him point blank whether he had asked the judge at his nephew's original hearing, to drop the charges? He replied with a very definite, "No, I did not do that." I already knew that from previously talking to the judge and listening to a recording of the hearing. But when I asked him if he had talked with anyone from the Grand Jury, the Uncle's eyes begin to look away and his answers became much more vague. For the record, he doesn't recall the events at the courthouse of three weeks ago, but was quite definite as to what occurred in a court room three months ago.

Well for reasons I don't understand, and because of the secrecy I will never know for sure, the Grand Jury issued a "no true bill" in this case. That means they didn't believe there was enough evidence presented to support an indictment and the accused walked away, just like he had told his battered wife he would do.

Of course the members of the Grand Jury were never given a chance to see the arrest report or photos of the injuries sustained by the wife. They were never given the chance to hear testimony by the arresting officer and prosecutor. When he arrived at the courthouse with the evidence, the Grand Jury Foreman told him the case had been disposed of and his testimony wouldn't be needed.

The information above consists of circumstantial evidence and hearsay. Without an official record of what went on inside the Grand Jury room that day, there is absolutely no way of knowing the definite truth. But as I said in a previous article, more than one or two little coincidences eventually turn into one big, ugly appearance of planning and manipulation.

The oath that is taken by the Grand Jury when they are selected includes the words, "you will diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all offenses given you in charge, or otherwise brought to your knowledge, committed or triable within this county; that you will present no person from hatred, malice, or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor, or affection, or for any reward, or the promise or hope thereof…." Does the above information reflect a body that is abiding by that oath?

Why are so many issues swept under the rug or conveniently overlooked? The Grand Jury is not only charged with deciding whether or not a criminal gets indicted. They are also expected to inquire into the abuse of office by county officers. As their sworn oath states, they will "diligently" address and investigate all offenses assigned or otherwise brought to their attention.

How then could they miss when a county official wrongfully and beyond the scope of his authority, orders the issuance of over $3,000 in unearned pay and benefits? Even after the courts found it to be wrong, the person or persons who perpetuated fraud against the county, have not been called to answer for their actions.

How can the County Sheriff accept hearsay from a relative as fact, trespass on someone's private property, shoot the family dog in front of the dog's kids, and within days, instead of the weeks or months that most people wait, receive a no true bill from the Grand Jury, clearing him of any wrongdoing?

Can the integrity of the Grand Jury be compromised? Can the decisions made as to whether or not to indict, be influenced by county officials? Is it possible for someone in a position of power and wealth to tamper with the Grand Jury?

I submit that it's very possible and highly probable! The Grand Jury is either corrupted or the members are incompetent and therefore unable to perform the duties required of them.

If the Grand Jury is vulnerable to corruption, whether consciously or not, wouldn't the worst possible reaction be to deny that a problem even exists? Perhaps it could be stopped if the people responsible could admit there are weaknesses. Perhaps those people would be more agreeable to admitting the problem exists if there was a record to explain the Juror's findings.

With the exception of a few federal institutions, every court in the land with the exception of the Grand Jury, must conduct business in the open and explain the reasons for their findings to the public. Why is a veil of secrecy that could be responsible for covering up incompetence, corruption or errors in judgment not removed?

Why would a man who probably subjected his wife to over an hour of vicious abuse, both verbally and physically, be allowed to freely walk the streets as though nothing happened.

Today, over five months after this alleged assault occurred; the wife still has trouble sleeping at night. She can't eat properly and has lost over 30 pounds since the attack, due to nerves and other psychological trauma.

The victim of this incident, along with the arresting officer, is pursuing the only avenue available when one contests the findings of the Grand Jury. They are required to present the testimony and evidence to a new Grand Jury when it is convened. Perhaps, if all the evidence is presented, and everyone abides by the oath they have sworn to, justice will fly high and the accused will be indicted and eventually made to answer for his brutality.

Perhaps justice will emerge more powerful than the influential Uncles of the world… to represent all people equally! One thing is certain, the next Grand Jury will be closely watched by all concerned. If they are being observed, they will not err.

Epilogue: In a subsequent Grand Jury hearing three months after the original and after these articles were originally published at www.maurynewsnet.com, the accused was indicted for felony aggravated assault. He eventually reached an agreement with prosecutors and pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. His former wife was given the opportunity to approve of the lesser charges before they were accepted by the court. It took nearly a full year for her to receive justice in this matter.