Have you ever been on a Grand Jury?

[dreamshark]

Or been summoned for one? Or known anyone who has been summoned for a Grand Jury? Well, now you do!

Richard got a Grand Jury Summons on Wednesday. Which he immediately declined (something you have the option to do if you are over 70). I kept trying to convince him that he should at least think it over with completely ineffective arguments like, "You get to see inside the most top secret law enforcement proceeding in America! You might get to decide whether or not to prosecute a murder case! Maybe even a police shooting! You can meet Mike Freeman! " This worked about as well as people trying to convince me that I would enjoy a cruise with arguments that have the exact opposite of the intended effect ("It's like being inside a huge floating hotel for 3 weeks! You can spend the day lying by a swimming pool in the blazing sun! You can see Las Vegas night club acts every night!")

However, Lena thought it sounded great, especially after I explained what a Grand Jury actually does. I started making up an example about a murder in an alley and next thing I knew we were playing a lively game of Grand Jury with Lena playing all the witnesses. Thorin eventually joined me on the jury and Richard played a cameo as the County Attorney to remind us of the name of the victim (Mr. Body. Anthony Body).

Here Lena (carrying a briefcase to indicate that she is a legitimate office worker) is recalling some details about a shady coworker (Mr. Bell) that she suspects of being involved in the crime. He had a creepy smile (especially on Tuesdays) and she had observed him using a computer that he wasn't supposed to use for suspicious activities during work hours. What suspicious activities? Oh... making notes. And lists of potential victims. Other witnesses placed a bearded man known as The Bell at the scene of the murder. Then we called a witness that confirmed that the creepy Mr. Bell was also known as THE Bell. The plot thickened to include some sentient animals (ducks with typewriters) but that appeared to be a red herring. In the end we indicted Mr. Bell.

 t

Comments

[redbird]

I was on a "special narcotics grand jury," meaning a month of very repetitive arrests for sale of small amounts of drugs. These were "buy-and-bust" cases, meaning the undercover cop waits for someone to offer to sell them drugs, accepts, and then arrests the dealer. (That's the theory, I have no idea how often the cops say "hey, I want to buy some $drug," which they're not supposed to do.)

I spent a month voting "no" on almost all the indictments, usually the only person in the room who didn't vote to indict. Then again, this was in New York, where the state chief judge famously observed that prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

I did vote for a few indictments, one where the person being arrested allegedly attacked the cop, and one case of illegal possession of a machine gun.

When they asked me to be on another grand jury, I wrote back that if they wanted, I would come vote no on everything again, but I'd rather be put back into the regular jury pool, and was.

[pameladean]

I'd probably do what Richard did and decline if I was allowed. Juries convene way too early for me.

I once got a preliminary inquiry about being put into a grand jury pool, I think. At the time I was having some very weird issues with hydration and tachycardia and drinking an incredible amount of water, with the expected results. (The issue turned out to be additive medication side effects, but it took quite some time for anybody to work that out.) I described this situation on the questionnaire with, I am afraid, a certain malicious glee. I was not notified that I had been excuse or whatever, but I never heard any more about it.

P.

[pameladean]

Completely forgot to say how delighted I was with your entry and the transformation of your house and family into grand jury proceedings by the simple power of imagination. It was lovely to read.

P.

[chasophonic]

I served on the Henn. Co Grand Jury well over a decade ago. An interesting and solemn experience. We met once a week for three months. Quite different than petit juries, you get to question witnesses for example.

Not recommended. There are places around the city that I avoided for years. The details of events at some of those sites still haunt me if I find driving by them.

[dreamshark]

Hmmm. I'm surprised that there were so many cases to hear. I had the idea that grand juries are convened fairly rarely, mostly for high profile cases where they need the subpoena power (e.g., police shootings).

[chasophonic]

They sit continually in that once a week format ready to hear matters within their charge. That being three areas. First degree murder, Political malfeasance, and certain crimes against children. We only dealt with the first of these during my term. Only Grand Juries can indict first degree murder. That is why you get that charge added later to those made at the time of arrest. There is also an investigatory role. The county can bring in witnesses for sworn testimony in matters under investigation. We did this once.

The murders were horrific enough. I glad we didn't get any of the crimes against children cases.

There was only one time when were excused for the day due to lack of business. Another time or two when we were dismissed early.

[dreamshark]

Thanks for the clarification. I find it all very interesting and would have been happy to serve if the summons had come to me. The investigatory role is the intriguing part, of course, so I'm disappointed to hear that it is invoked so rarely.

I looked it up and found that a grand jury is required in cases that carry the highest possible penalty (life in prison in Minnesota), so that would include all first degree murders. I hadn't really stopped to think how many homicides there are every year in Minneapolis - somewhere between 50 and 100 as I recall. Does a grand jury have to consider every one of those, or just the ones that the County Attorney is considering charging as Murder 1?

[chasophonic]

The County Attorney's office decides which cases to bring before the Gand Jury. All of them are investigatory given that we could ask questions of witnesses. The one solely investigative case brought a witness before us who wound up (as hoped) giving crucial information that hadn't come out in their police statements.

Note: This is not a trial. It is a process of getting information on record to proceed to trial. The ACA and 23 jurors question witnesses. No defense attorney is present. The accused are present only if they testify. The jury then deliberates and decides whether to indict.

We can talk about this more sometime.

[carbonel]

My mother was summoned for one decades ago (in Illinois), but was able to avoid it on the grounds of hardship, since she would have lost a month's salary and possibly her job (though technically they're not allowed to do that).

Don't mind me...

[ng_moonmoth]

>> the name of the victim (Mr. Body. Anthony Body). <<

I can't help but think it would have been even more fun if the victim was a woman named Annie instead.

Re: Don't mind me...

[dreamshark]

You're right, that would've have been a better choice for the pun he was attempting to make. But we'd already established that the victim was a "masked man."

Re: Don't mind me...

[ng_moonmoth]

Alas! Continuity is a stern disciplinarian.

Re: Don't mind me...

[dreamshark]

LOL