Grand Jury

On 8/6/17 "Tennessean" had an editorial on Grand Juries. In the process of discussing the process the author noted that the Davidson County Grand Jury returned about 99% indictments for cases presented to it. Here is the exact quotation.

"Ironically, they sided with law enforcement in 99 percent of the 477 cases they reviewed — perhaps attributable to the fact that they relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors."

Note the final phrase. The number of indictments is "...perhaps attributable to the fact that they relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors." That is precisely the case, because in the Grand Jury system in Tennessee, the police and prosecutors bring all of the cases to the Jury, a presentment, for the panel to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial. No other evidence or view point is offered.

That is akin to saying that every ball that was hit by the batter was thrown by the pitcher. Seems obvious and repetitious and redundant.

The Jury has one job. It is not to determine guilt or innocence. It is to evaluate the evidence presented by the authorities and decide if there is enough to warrant a trial. I served on a GJ once and nearly every time we met, either the prosecutor or the foreman reminded us that we were not to decide if we thought the subject had done it. We were to decide if a crime had occurred and enough evidence pointed toward the person in question to justify a trial.

Now just logically, no officer would bring a case in which he had no evidence. There would be nothing for us to judge. We had one citizen complaint where a citizen appeared and asked us to indict his neighbor. We decided that no crime had occurred. He was probably rude, crude, and lewd, but no law had been broken. No true bill.

So the comment that the Jurors relied only on the arguments of police and prosecutors is pointless. No one else presents to a grand jury. The defense gets its day in court. The simple fact that 99% were returned as a true bill merely reflects the fact that the government had done its job. There was enough evidence to go to trial.

Nothing more or nothing less is implied by this data. The grand jury is not to inject race, or financial, or cultural, or social bias into the equation. Is there evidence? Yes, indict. No, do not indict. No evaluation of the evidence is involved, other than ascertaining that some exists.

Do your job Tennessean. The grand jury did.