My Experience on a Grand Jury

When we see jury trials in movies, it is usually "a jury of one's peers" assembled in a courtroom for a specific purpose. There is usually a room full of spectators who have a vested interest in the outcome of events unfolding in the moment. Some have been subpoenaed, required to attend. Depending on the importance of the case, the. room is sparsely populated or crammed to the gills.

This is not the same as a grand jury. The trial jury, a public event, serves for the duration of a trial to determine guilt or innocence. A grand jury is a group of citizens sworn in to serve for a full six months, and with a different objective. The objective of a grand jury is to determine whether there is enough evidence to indict. That is, enough evidence to bring a person to trial. 

FindLaw.com puts it like this:

A grand jury helps determine whether charges should be brought against a suspect, while a trial jury renders a verdict at the criminal trial itself. Put differently, a grand jury hands down an indictment at the beginning of a case, while a trial jury decides guilt or innocence at the very end (not counting the appeal process). 

Grand jury proceedings are held in strict confidence to encourage witnesses to speak freely, as well as to protect the suspect if the grand jury decides not to bring charges.

In Minnesota, there are two types of cases that get brought before a grand jury, murder (1) and cases involving high profile citizens (2). Examples might be a mayor, district attorney or city councilman. The reason for this latter matter is that reputations are at stake. If the high profile person is involved in an incident and it is not his or her fault, this should be handled in privacy. Unlike trials in the movies or shows like Perry Mason, grand jury deliberations have no media, no audience. The grand jury chamber only has a judge, jury, court recorder, and the attorneys who bring their evidence and, one by one, their witnesses.

* * * *

In my six months service on the Grand Jury we only had one case to preside over. The case involved a public figure who unintentionally caused physical harm to another person.

There were 23 of us on the jury. It is not a 12 person jury. 

It was our responsibility to decide whether to indict or not indict the public figure. If we decided the person was guilty, the prosecuting attorney's next step would be to file charges and prepare the case to go to trial, a public event.

One of the responsibilities of the grand jury is to never share what happened or what we heard and saw in the grand jury chambers. The word "never" means forever. And though I took copious notes throughout, I will not divulge details here, other than the process by which we made our determination not to indict.

The attorney on behalf of the victim presented first. This attorney showed us the consequences of the event that occurred. We saw medical records and heard a presentation of details from the point of view of the victim. It didn't take long for us to conclude that the "high profile person" had done a bad thing and was guilty.

Then the defense had its turn. 

The event had occurred in a public place and there were many witnesses. The police had done a thorough job of acquiring names and contact information from everyone who was there, and we listened as each one told what they saw.

The original picture that had been formed in our minds was not accurate at all. There was much more to the story. After hearing 15 to 20 witnesses tell what they saw and heard, the jury had to make a decision. 

Someone had been assigned the responsibility of being the lead spokesperson of our group. When we were left to ourselves to deliberate, he gave us all a scrap of paper and asked us to write our verdicts on these pieces of paper. It seemed to him, and we concurred, that there is no point in a long drawn out discussion if we were already all in agreement.

I believe the decision had to be unanimous, and in that first go-round it turned out we had 22 "not guilty" and 1 on the fence. 

A discussion ensued and in retrospect I feel wrong about what happened next. We had to make a decision or come back the next day and has things out. One of the members of the jury was grumbling about it and didn't think we needed to come back the next day. In point of fact, no one wanted to lose another day of work. (We were being compensated $35 a day for our service, if I remember correctly.) The person with doubts, therefore, was under pressure to go along with the rest because to not go along would inconvenience 22 other people. 

Was justice served? One could argue that it's unfair that the person with wealth and power got off scot free and another human was permanently disabled. The perpetrator, however, was also a victim of circumstances. And he did not get off "scot free." He had to deal with the aftermath of what happened, regretting it the rest of his life. 

There's much more to the story but we were sworn to secrecy and I can't share things that might give any clues. 

* * * *

This grand jury experience came to mind when I saw the outrage with regard to the Breonna Taylor verdict in which officers were tried by grand jury to determine whom and how many to indict of what. 

We do not know all the evidence that was presented. What I do know is that all kinds of information gets passed around on Twitter and through the media that may or may not have a shred of truth. I was not there and I have no idea what all the facts are. What I do believe is that the jurors themselves realized that they had a solemn responsibility and did not take it lightly. 

There are good reasons why many people do not have confidence in the criminal justice system. There are also plenty of valid reasons for having little confidence in the media. It goes without saying that social media can be even less reliable.

* * * *

Perhaps an Oscar Wilde quote would can serve as a summing up at this point. "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."