Grand Juror Lauds D.A. Staff’s Protocol

I was a member of the 1992-93 Ventura County Grand Jury, and we spent about a third of our time with indictment hearings--more than any previous grand jury.

The indictment hearing can be a point of friction. Such a hearing takes the place of a preliminary hearing, saving money. But it also means that no defense lawyers are present, each witness is called in singly with only the grand jury, a court stenographer and a deputy district attorney present. So it can seem one-sided.

While the evidence we heard came only from the prosecutor’s office, it had to be strong to convince a majority to vote for indicting the accused. We were provided photocopies of applicable statutes and further explanation regarding standards of proof, and sometimes the evidence (in our opinion) was insufficient to indict, so we didn’t.

Grand jurors serve for a year, and in comparison to the investigation and report writing about governmental agencies (which can be dry and dull) the indictment hearings provide a fascinating glimpse of human passions behind the headlines.

Unlike a preliminary hearing, which must proceed on consecutive business days, an indictment hearing can have intervals between days of testimony and evidence. Thus it is a natural concern that the requisite number of jurors be present for all days of each case. All voting jurors had to hear and see all the evidence relating to the case at hand.

The district attorney’s office was always entirely professional with us, and we were never pressured or forced one way or another. The deputy district attorneys presented their cases and evidence, and then left us alone to deliberate.

Not once during my year’s service did any member of the district attorney’s office act inappropriately or unprofessionally toward the grand jury. Nor did Michael Bradbury. They adhered always to proper protocol and I cannot believe any of them would deviate from this practice in this or any other instance.

VIRGINIA WEBER

Ventura