Grand Jury and Conflict of Interest

Within the last 30 days we have seen 2 cases taken before a grand jury involving charges against police in the death of unarmed black civilians. In both of these states, Missouri and New York, the grand jury is sometimes, but not always, used to bring indictments against a person(s) the district attorney believes should be charged with a crime.

In the grand jury process, the prosecutor brings in all the evidence that a person(s) has committed a crime. The prosecutor presents this evidence to the grand jury.  As the information in FindLaw.com states:

Grand Jury ProceedingsGrand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.
However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes:

1. It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation.

1. It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict. 

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html#sthash.8fmexI6o.dpuf

There is no judge (the person who should be the most neutral) and no defense attorney. The only person of legal authority at the grand jury meeting is the prosecutor and the intention is that he or she reflects the opinion of the state - that he or she has enough evidence to bring charges against a person(s).  

This is where we see the conflict of interest in both the case in Missouri and in New York. The prosecutor in both of these states is voted into office. The prosecutor also needs the help of the police to find evidence against those he or she would like to charge. In both of these cases it was the local prosecutor who brought the cases in front of the grand jury. The political ramifications of acquiring a charge may be the end of his or her career.

What should have happened instead? In both of these states, the prosecutor has the authority to not call a grand jury and take the case to a preliminary hearing, which is in front of a judge and open to the public. If the prosecutor still wanted to have a grand jury, a special prosecutor, not affiliated or affected by political matters within the jurisdiction, should have been appointed.

Without either of these two changes, these cases and decisions will never positively affect the conversation on race and equity in our justice system.