Changes May Lead to a Stronger Grand Jury

On July 1, a new and slightly different Orange County Grand Jury panel began its one-year term. What makes this year’s jury different, and more promising, is that it contains three holdover jurors from the 1987-88 panel.

That holdover feature should give the grand jury needed continuity and the ability to follow up on some of its recommendations so that last year’s panel, and all its work, doesn’t pass into oblivion.

Too often in the past, new juries have had to go over the same ground, coming to the same conclusions and issuing the same reports to the same public officials, who choose to ignore them. True, each year the outgoing jury meets with the new one, and an association of former grand jurors was even formed, but continuity from one panel to the next has been hard to achieve.

At least now, with some holdover jurors and the closer follow-up they should be able to provide, there is a much better chance of keeping issues before the public. That strengthens the grand jury system, because in the jury’s main role as watchdog of local government operations and efficiency, its only power is in its ability to spotlight problems and influence the public and public officials to react to jury findings.

The outgoing panel also recognized another jury weakness--its makeup. The 19-member jury panel historically is composed of mostly older, more affluent, retired Anglo men. Women jurors are often homemakers. Rarely represented are younger people and minorities. The new panel just seated is no different. The lack of diversity is not by design. The problem is that grand jury service is becoming a nearly full-time job that takes up about four days each week for an entire year. Many people cannot devote that kind of time to jury service, and the new panel should study ways to make the jury composition more representative of the community.

The new panel should also release its findings throughout the year as reports are completed and not hold them for the final year-end report. In that way each issue studied will have the maximum amount of public exposure and a greater chance for community reaction.

And time should be taken to do more in-depth study of serious and complex issues. Last year’s panel, for example, in studying County Jail, determined that sheriff’s deputies staffing the jail didn’t use excessive force in 16 confrontations between inmates and deputies that had been termed questionable in a previous jail study.

Maybe excessive force wasn’t used, but the jury’s study wasn’t detailed enough to really determine what happened. All a consultant hired by the jury did was review reports of the incidents filed by jailers. The jury spoke to no one involved in the incidents.

The grand jury report on training for jail deputies did note that the present program is inadequate as it applies to the cultural aspects of minority groups. It added that while there is no “present critical need” for changes in their training, a “potential problem area exists.”

With about 57% of the central men’s jail population made up of minority members, training program changes should be made at once. Increased awareness by jailers of cultural distinctions between minorities could lead to a better atmosphere for inmates and jailers, and fewer confrontations. Just the fact that the grand jury calls attention to such problems is evidence of its vital watchdog role.