The Grand Jury Process and Recent Police Officer Cases
Over the past several weeks, two separate grand juries decided not to indict two police officers for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. First, before I go any further, this is a topic many people feel very passionate about and this article is not my personal opinion on what is right or wrong. Instead, I want to look at the process that takes place when allegations are made against a police officer, such as Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo, and specifically focus on the grand jury process that has been the topic of much conversation and confusion. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifice made by police officers when they risk their own safety to protect our communities, I have many friends who serve in law enforcement positions, but also realize that, like all professionals, police officers are not perfect.
The first question that many of my friends have asked is why are these officers not going to trial? Many times, when someone kills another person, they go to trial, a jury is selected and that jury decides whether someone is guilty. The jury must decide whether, based on the evidence presented in the courtroom, the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, this was not the process that took place in Ferguson or New York in the recent publicized cases. These cases never made it to a jury for a decision of guilt and, instead, grand juries decided there was not enough evidence to bring these cases to trial.
So the next obvious question is what is a grand jury? Grand juries can differ based on the jurisdiction, however, many have similar characteristics. Grand juries are not intended to determine whether a defendant is guilty; instead, grand juries decide whether probable cause exists to bring charges against a defendant. However, there are other key differences between a jury trial and a grand jury. Grand juries are secret proceedings, all the facts are usually not presented and only one lawyer is present. Moreover, unlike a normal trial, a grand jury has the power to see and hear almost anything they would like without many of the limitations of the rules of evidence. The one lawyer present is the prosecutor who presents the evidence he or she believes is necessary to obtain an indictment, which would result in the case being tried in front of a jury. Unlike a trial for guilt or liability, no defense attorney or judge is present, which would lead many people to believe that the odds of obtaining an indictment are stacked in the prosecutor's favor.
Regardless of a person's feelings of whether the correct result was reached in the recent high profile cases, it is important to always analyze the process and ask what could be improved for the future. One suggestion has been the appointment of an "independent prosecutor" when a police officer is being indicted. Former New York State Chief Judge, Sol Wachtler, once stated that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "Indict a ham sandwich." University of Illinois law professor, Andrew D. Leipold, has been quoted as stating, "If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn't get one, something has gone horribly wrong." This is not to say that something went wrong in either Ferguson or New York, but many question why we would not take reasonable steps to eliminate possible bias in a local prosecutor.
Throughout law school, I had the opportunity to work as an intern for both a prosecutor and public defender's office, and I agree with many people that it could be difficult for a local prosecutor to effectively prosecute a local police officer. Again, this is not to say it is impossible or to even suggest that bias was present in either of the recent high profile cases. However, many times, prosecutors work very closely with the police force and, with my experience, many of them are friends. There is nothing wrong with this, but it could create a difficult situation if the police officer commits a crime.
This leads to the difficult question of how effective is a local prosecutor in presenting a case against one of his colleagues? An independent prosecutor is someone who could be brought in to prosecute a police officer. The independent prosecutor would not be from the local jurisdiction and, therefore, theoretically could eliminate or limit the potential conflict of interest.
However, even if an independent prosecutor is used, it is still impossible to remove all bias from the prosecution process. First, the police department where the officer worked is likely going to be the department responsible for investigating the incident. This is not to say that the police department cannot complete a good faith investigation, but it could raise concerns. Moreover, jury bias will always be present. Police officers have to be allowed to use deadly force and juries know this. Many times, officers must make split second decisions and they cannot always be right. It can be difficult for a jury to punish someone who is responsible for protecting their community, even when the wrong decision was made and especially when contrasting stories exist. People do not want their safety to be put in jeopardy by limiting an officer's abilities.
Regardless of a person's opinion regarding the recent cases, the legal profession must always reflect on itself to ensure that justice is served.
Over the past several weeks, two separate grand juries decided not to indict two police officers for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. First, before I go any further, this is a topic many people feel very passionate about and this article is not my personal opinion on what is right or wrong. Instead, I want to look at the process that takes place when allegations are made against a police officer, such as Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo, and specifically focus on the grand jury process that has been the topic of much conversation and confusion. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifice made by police officers when they risk their own safety to protect our communities, I have many friends who serve in law enforcement positions, but also realize that, like all professionals, police officers are not perfect.
;)
