|
| |
The Arizona County Grand Jury
A former grand juror’s perspective...
(1st edition - September 2005) by A.O. Kime
 for information on
'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
Having once served as a juror on a county Grand Jury in Arizona during the
spring/summer of 2005, I had observed, witnessed and arrived at the following
conclusions...
Of all the judicial mechanisms, the Grand Jury system seems to hold the most
interest because, I went on to discover, it is a contentious issue within most
legal, political and activist circles. While the Grand Jury system has a
multitude of supporters, which even includes prosecuting attorneys (perhaps
surprisingly), it also has its vocal critics. The support for the Grand Jury of
course is due to the concept itself, being a magnificent instrument of justice, whereas
the majority of its critics point to its weaknesses. This is somewhat ironic; it
isn’t the concept itself under fire (per se), primarily its weaknesses. In other
words, the Grand Jury is most often criticized because it doesn’t work well
enough. It is too much under the control of the prosecution, many contend; while
others go further to declare it is merely a ‘tool’ for the prosecution.
There are good reasons to believe it… during
our indoctrination period (on legal procedures), which took about half the first
day; the ‘presentation’ was conducted entirely by an attorney from the County
Attorney’s Office. No presentation was heard from anyone representing the
‘other side of the aisle’, like a defense attorney… not
even for a brief statement. At this point I began to realize this was
creating an atmosphere favoring the prosecution.
While normally the selected grand jurors are to serve for four months,
we only sat for three months because, due to illness, vacations and
jurors moving away, we could no longer produce a quorum. At any rate, during
that time we were never in contact with anyone except a prosecutor whose job it
is to present us felony cases, and their ‘witnesses’… which are either city
police officers, state highway patrolmen or other agents of the government (a
probation officer for example). Note: a
county Grand Jury only hears the 'less egregious' felony cases, not murder for
example, nor do they handle misdemeanors.
Further creating this one-sided influential atmosphere, in payment for our jury
duty ($12/day plus mileage) the prosecutor was the one who usually handed us our
checks! This symbolic gesture could have an influential effect on some jurors
and should be a job solely for the Clerk of the County Grand Jury (who
occasionally would). It gives the impression we're working for the prosecutor!
It is as much psychologically influencing as if a defendant were to massage the judge during
recess. Of some additional psychological impact, it makes jurors feel less
an 'independent body’. While one might doubt this would have much effect on the average
juror, a number of such things can and does.
Questioning the prosecution's witnesses
While grand jurors may question a witness, and are always permitted to do so, I
personally got the impression the prosecutor didn’t like it. In their rush-rush,
fast-talking legal environment, of rapid-fire questioning of the witness by the
prosecutor, a slow-talking, prodding juror seems held in contempt… especially
one always asking questions. In other words, such an environment isn’t made
conducive for questions from the jurors… and further dissuading it was the heavy
workload… our Grand Jury was expected to hear 20 or more cases each daily
sitting. It obviously became a time-factor for a couple of jurors… hesitant to spend
too much time on any one case lest we’d run late. So, sadly, this un-conducive
atmosphere for questioning was also created by a few jurors who would, between
cases and during deliberations, openly express their disgust over the slow-paced cases
and the passing time. These jurors seldom asked any questions and seemed to hold in contempt
those who continually did… for ‘holding things up’.
Of all of mankind’s legal devices, the jury system is the greatest instrument to
insure justice but in order to make it work judicially, jurors must have both a
sense of responsibility and a sense of justice. Rubber-stamping everything the prosecutor
puts forth for the sake of expediency goes beyond words of disgust. I contend
however, that much of this ‘rubber-stamping’ is due to this
pro-prosecution atmosphere allowed by the rules governing the working
relationship between the prosecution and the Grand Jury.
This pro-prosecution atmosphere has proven itself more than merely an edge.
In a shocking statistical report for fiscal 1994 found that federal
grand juries returned indictments in 99.6% of the cases. I would venture to guess that
figure roughly reflects the indictment rate for all other grand juries (state and county).
Our particular (county) Grand Jury indicted about 90%.
Juror rubber-stamping
I contend rubber-stamping is done for the following reasons:
- jurors influenced by the exclusive, continual and thus prosecutorial dominance
of the proceedings (not during deliberations of course)
- a time concern… jurors just wanting to get the day over with (seemingly being
of the opinion questioning a witness not only slows down the process of hearing
a case but questioning could bring up doubts… lengthening deliberations)
- jurors voting with the majority merely for the sense of belonging (it
actually happens and the most pitiful of all reasons)
- jurors in denial as to any chance the witness (a policeman) might be lying
- a juror’s belief that any law broken constitutes a ‘crime’ (see below for
more elaboration on this point)
- jurors concerned that by casting a ‘no’ vote in sensitive cases (i.e. drug
possession, sexual abuse and domestic violence) could damage their professional
reputation… apparently fearful one of the jurors might publicly reveal it (I
knew a couple jurors who were not voting according to their privately-held
convictions)
- assumes the evidence presented constitutes enough probable cause
- confusion in understanding the case... assumes the prosecution knows what
it is doing
- retired cops, teachers and other public employees serving as jurors are more
likely to rubber-stamp
Crime... what does it mean?
While the Grand Jury is commissioned to "determine whether there is
probable cause a crime was committed”, these instructions,
presenting a dichotomous dilemma on the whole, are subject to interpretation. The prosecution
assuredly believes 'probable cause' is the only variable (crime assumed)...but it CAN BE
legitimately construed to mean that two conditions,
both 'probable cause' and 'crime', must be met (crime not assumed).
For instance... it could be that yes, there was
probable cause but no, it was not a crime. I believe
'not a crime' is the juror's exclusive justification to vote 'no' when he/she believes the
law is 'out of line'. This frequently happens. Most often however a 'no' vote is
because the juror believes probable cause did not exist. This might be due to
flimsy evidence, suspicion of entrapment or doubts as to the witness's version.
But is this trying to cast doubt on the meaning of a commonly known
term? After all, everyone knows what crime means... that is, everyone except the law.
The encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com
says this:
Natural law theory of crime
"An alternative view of crime is derived from the theory of natural law. In this
view, crime is the violation of individual rights. Since rights are considered
as natural, rather than man-made, what constitutes a crime is also natural, in
contrast to laws, which are man-made. Adam Smith illustrates this view, saying a
smuggler would be an excellent citizen, "had not the laws of his country made
that a crime which nature never meant to be so."
Natural law theory thus distinguishes between criminality and illegality, the
former being derived from human nature, the latter being derived from the
interests of those in power. The two concepts are sometimes expressed with the
phrases "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum". This
view leads to a seeming paradox, that an act can be illegal that is no crime, while
a criminal act could be perfectly legal.
Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers
subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among
so-called classical liberals and libertarians.
Persons convicted of serious crimes are often punished by being kept in prison,
for a term of years. There are about 2 million people in prison in the United
States."
During the indoctrination period, and at other times a juror asked the following
be clarified, it was always stated (by the prosecution) that "the Grand Jury must
determine whether there is probable cause a crime was committed”. It
was never stated “whether there is probable cause a law was broken”… not
once. There lies a contentious issue between jurors… is there a difference or
not? I contend there CAN BE a difference; I share the growing belief that not all
unlawful acts constitute an offense, which in turn is called a 'crime', an
onerous, branding and legally-abused term. While most jurors openly stated there is NEVER
a difference, that to break any law IS a crime (offense), curiously they weren’t
always faithful to that belief… occasionally to vote against the prosecution in
selected circumstances… especially a circumstance they personally believed the
law is ‘out-of-line’. Of course those same jurors are quick to blast other jurors
for doing the same thing in other cases. For example, juror #1 might not agree
with drug paraphernalia laws and vote ‘no’ whereas juror #2, who voted ‘yes’,
might not agree with the charges filed in another case involving a fistfight and
vote ‘no’, whereas juror #1 voted ‘yes’. In both cases probable cause was not
the issue but instead whether the law was ‘out of line’. Nonetheless, for reasons I'll soon
explain, this is a very healthy situation... especially today.
While juror #1 might not believe possession of drug
paraphernalia was a crime (in itself), there could be aggravating circumstances whereby
he/she felt it was and, if 'probable cause' existed as well, then this would trigger a
'yes' vote. Similarly, if the circumstances surrounding the fistfight were
different, juror #2 might vote 'yes'. But are these jurors taking too much upon
themselves and judging the law as well? Yes in one respect... no in another.
So what does the dictionary say about crime?
Crime (n) 1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or
the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to
punishment by that law; esp: a gross violation of law 2: a grave offense esp.
against morality 3: criminal activity (efforts to fight ~) 4: something
reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful (it’s a ~ to waste good food)
What about the legal definition?
In Black’s Law Dictionary (a prestigious authority) it states:
crime. A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty
treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding
Curiously (although a common practice for Black’s Law Dictionary), it
also added this quote:
“It is a curious fact that all the minor acts enumerated in the penal code of a
state like, say, New York are in law called crimes, which includes both murder
and overparking. It is a strong term to use for the latter, and of course the
law has for centuries recognized that there are more serious and less serious
crimes. At the common law, however, only two classes were recognized, serious
crimes or felonies, and minor crimes or misdemeanors.” Max Radin, The Law and
You 91 (1948)
In further searches for a legal definition, I discovered the definition of
‘crime’ differed. It seemed to depend on who wrote the definition and
what historical legal basis or theory they favored. In that it is not uniformly
described… it qualifies as a debatable issue. One definition even entangled it
with mitigating circumstances while another had it as "the
simultaneous concurrence of both ‘guilty action’ (actus reus) and ‘guilty mind’
(mens rea)", more commonly known as ‘intent’. While all these
definitions are probably suitable for public consumption, for legal purposes
none adequately defined it.
The problem with trying to define ‘crime’ in the current manner is that there is
practically no consideration as to what crime definitively IS, instead it is
defined as if a variable… hence the diversity in opinion. As currently
described, crime is a convenient crock-pot to cook any law into a crime. In other
words, a definition should be precise and inflexible... especially for legal
purposes. For example, one cannot
say a rose bush is a tree because it doesn’t match the biological description of a
tree. Until crime is precisely defined, jaywalking
and other such minor offenses can be made to be considered crimes. Chewing gum
in class could be considered a crime. There should be no discretion in
lawmaking as to what constitutes a crime… only the offense itself should
determine whether it is a crime. For example, is a frog an
amphibian or not? If crime is 'forbidden acts and/or social harm', who
determines what they are? Until this is settled, call it a felony or call it a
misdemeanor... but don't call it a crime.
Each and every law on the books cannot be, and should not be, stretched in order to
be associated with crime. Actually, ‘egregiousness’ best describes crime, not
unlawfulness universal. Likewise for moral trespasses... they cannot be, and should not be,
stretched to be associated with crime.
But is dwelling on this aspect (crime/not crime) preposterous when 'probable
cause' is all a juror should be concerned with? Well, not when you factor in the
current on-going evolutionary process of the law and lawmaking. Only a few
decades ago, 'probable cause' was all a juror felt necessary to consider... but
things have changed. The legislatures have taken a different approach (tougher,
outrageous laws) so they have
changed; the courts are now subject to minimum guidelines so they have changed. To
compensate for this, to keep justice afloat, jurors are being forced to change
how they conduct themselves also... in effect altering the jury's role.
Consciously or unconsciously, wittingly or unwittingly, jurors are focusing more
on whether it is a crime (or not) as the secondary condition to indict. With
crime attached to every lawbreaking instance, with minor infractions now considered
felonies, with the overly stiff sentences imposed, jurors have been forced
to choose between right and wrong themselves. After all, jurors must prepare themselves for
the coming day they'll be asked to indict a ham sandwich.
Can all broken laws be described as crime?
In the end however, it shouldn't matter whether a juror has the opinion a
broken law and crime are synonymous or not. In the name of justice, a
juror’s personal opinion must always prevail as the
highest authority. Besides, a juror does not have to reveal their
reasoning... if he/she wanted to, they could vote 'no' because it was raining
that day. At any rate, personal discretion was honored in our case as we were never pressured
by the prosecution nor was the reasoning behind our vote ever questioned. Despite this
‘pro-prosecution’ atmosphere I allege exists, the freedom to vote our conscience
was made perfectly clear by the prosecution. This was heartfelt… it made me feel proud (and
grateful) to be an American. It took some of the disgust out of my disgustedness.
It is therefore wise, prudent, and responsible of the prosecution to phrase the
‘instructions’ to say (as they do)… “the Grand Jury must determine whether there
is probable cause a crime was committed”. To say otherwise would
be viewed as an attempt usurp the jury system. It seems obvious (now) that the
prosecution knew this all along and therefore chose not to address this curious and
contentious matter during the indoctrination period, nor did they anytime
thereafter. Like a plague, it seemed, they avoided it.
While initially I thought it would be helpful for jurors to have someone
from the ‘other side of the aisle’ during the indoctrination… in order to point
out any distinction (in their opinion) between ‘crime’ and ‘unlawful’… I’ve
since changed my mind. Pointing out a distinction could prove disastrous to both
the defense (later) and the Grand Jury system… in that it would force the
prosecution, otherwise seemingly content not to voice their opinion, to openly
state their (probable) belief that there is no difference between ‘crime’ and ‘a
broken law’. It would be damaging to the Grand Jury system because if the
prosecution were to emphatically state there was no difference, pounding the
point home perhaps, such would have great sway with many jurors. But the
prosecution didn’t... nor do they currently NEED to make such a statement. I believe they
are counting on the fact most jurors won’t recognize (or believe) a distinction
exists. And it seemed to hold true… those jurors almost invariably voted in
favor of an indictment but, I think, primarily because of ‘probable cause’.
While I believe SOME mindless ‘rubber-stamping’ occurred, probable cause was in
the mind of those jurors in voting 'yes'. As to how many 'yes' votes the
atmosphere can claim, I can't say, but I think my guess would be horrifying.
However the presence of a defense attorney during the indoctrination period
would be helpful in conveying a sense of independence to the jurors. Even if the
attorney was only allowed to introduce themselves and serve as an observer would
be enough. As an officer of the court, it is only proper one should be
present... just as a judge was present during the selection process. From the
beginning to end of our grand jurors term, the defense was conspicuously absent.
We saw a wingless eagle.
The Grand Jury as a 'screen'
While the Grand Jury was conceived to serve as a ‘screen’ to prevent unwarranted
charges from being filed in the first place… 'screen' was a term the prosecution
curiously never mentioned (perhaps intentionally). Such a characterization would
have been helpful because incredibly, even after our
‘indoctrination’ several jurors were still unsure what role the Grand Jury was
supposed to play. With other jurors left trying to characterize it for them, the
unsure eventually agreed ‘screen’ said it best.
Without being fully enlightened as to how the Grand Jury is to technically operate initially,
more specifically how to conduct our questioning and deliberations, during the
first couple sessions every single juror was in a quandary. This fact was
unanimously expressed. We had to figure things out for ourselves… and, as a
result, most ended up with somewhat different ideas. We were also left to develop our own
procedural guidelines for how to deliberate and vote. In retrospect, it
was best we weren’t given any guidelines… lest to
feel under external control. By the 3rd session we had things running smoothly.
We were proud of ourselves... it was democracy in action.
At any rate, the Grand Jury must then vote to either indict (called a ‘true
bill’)… or not to indict (called a ‘no bill’). In Arizona, it requires nine
‘yes’ votes to indict. While 16 jurors comprise the Grand Jury (with four
alternates available), it may operate with less (due to absenteeism). Interestingly,
whether to proceed with less is the
prosecutor’s call… more symbolism, it seems, of the prosecution ‘running
things’. On the other hand, it could be a matter of the prosecution waiving
their rights to have all 16 present (I’m not sure). In one particular session
the prosecution decided to go ahead with only 11 jurors but of course fewer
jurors lessen the prosecutor’s chance for an indictment. That held true… three ‘no
bills’ were issued in that session.
As to the overall conduct of the prosecution, I must add I was impressed by the
professionalism displayed by the County Attorney… sure never to be legally
out-of-bounds it seemed. And they weren’t, I don’t think, not once. Even though they
carried out their duties entirely within the legal framework, nonetheless I felt they
were taking advantage of their liberties with the Grand Jury. While
normally one can’t fault someone for trying to ‘win’, but when justice is at
stake, we should. It shouldn’t be a matter of the government ‘winning’ and the lawmakers
should tighten the rules. Fine-tuning is all that is required for this
otherwise wonderful system to provide, as mandated, full justice for the accused.
Summary
In light of the ambiguousness of the word ‘crime’, so loosely defined, it seems
odd that the legal establishment would use it. While the public has a general
picture of crime, assuredly being something of serious nature, gross, severe and egregious
violations mainly, assuredly to include such things as murder, theft, rape and
kidnapping, and even some white-collar offenses, within that picture I don't see
the lesser offenses which the law calls misdemeanors.
Within that picture, I don’t see so many felonies either. However I picture
things as they once were, back in the 50's, 60's and 70's when there were only a
handful of felonies. Today in Arizona, almost everything is a felony. Possessing
a bong or yelling at your wife is now on a par with murder. If you give someone
a dirty look today, legally considered 'threatening and intimidating', that is
also a felony. If you're guilty of these, you're a criminal. Maybe this explains
the 'no bills'.
For legal purposes, perhaps the word ‘crime’ shouldn’t be used at all… let the
laymen have it. After all, ‘felony’ and ‘misdemeanor’ is all the legal system
really needs. However to do so would require the instructions given the Grand
Jury be altered. I might suggest this one... “the Grand Jury must determine whether the law
is just and probably broken sufficiently”. It smacks of the good old days of the Roman
12 Tables (c. 450 BCE).
The idealistic concept of commissioning the Grand Jury to
judge both probable cause AND the justness of the law (two conditions in order
to indict) would be a milestone. As expressed daily by each and every jury throughout
the country, it would be a continual monitor of
the public sentiments as to the law. It is the next step forward. Actually, such
a commission would merely sanctify what is already occurring... albeit far less
than it should.
A.O. Kime
Check out our wide variety of articles within
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~
 |
Wisdom from the Golden Ages!
As the ancients did, learn how to discover the secrets of life... |
 |
The real story of the Stone Age!
Learn we didn't evolve from an ape nor crawled from the sea...
|
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues
This website and contents are explained in our Introduction
>TOP
>HOME
| |
A.O. Kime
articles
—AGRICULTURE
Biocontrols
Bio-oddities
DDT ban
Family farmers
Family farms
Farm socialism
Kansas Settlement
—ANTIQUITY
American cavemen
Ancient history
Ancient pyramids
Caveman facts
Caveman story
Cavemen-cultural
Charles Darwin
Cumbemayo
Evolution
Kennewick Man
Montezuma Castle
Neanderthals
Pre-Clovis cultures
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
—METAPHYSICAL
Bodhisattva
Death
Divine
intelligence
Dreams
Enlightenment
Ethics
Guardian angels
Hope
Imagination
Immortality
Instincts
Land (the)
Matrix (real)
Metaphysics
Mnemosyne
Muse
Phenomena
Plotinus
Poetry
Polytheism
Semantics
Sixth sense
Spiritual soul
Spirit world
Subconscious mind
Suicide
Supernatural
—SOCIOPOLITICAL
19th Century
Arrogance
Civil wars
Civilization
Coolness
Economic injustices
Establishment
Foreign policies
Freedom
Globalization
Grand Jury
Herodotus
Int'l Criminal Court
Majority rule
Megalomania
Politesse
Proposition 203
Power lust
Rule of law
Sovereign immunity
Tobacco taxation
War criminals
World wars
|
METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
