Should grand jury testimony be sealed forever?

[Lucky... 0]

Let's examine why grand jury testimony is sealed. Why is this information not public right from the start? Why is it not unsealed after all proceedings?

Many on here might not understand grand jury proceedings, so I will cover it in a general way. I'm no expert, such as lawrocket likely is, but I understand the gist of them.

When the prosecutors (selectively) decide to pursue a crime and file a charge, they can direct file in most cases. The defense can then file Orders to Show Cause or other motions to have hearings to establish that there isn't enough evidence to hold teh defendants. But for more serious crimes the prosecutor must go to a grand jury to get the indictment or true bill. The prosecutor can go there as many times as they wish, no matter how many denials. Generally, the GJ is a rubber stamp for the prosecution. During the GJ hearing, the only allowed people are the judge and staff, the prosecution and any witnesses the prosecutor decides they want. Defense is not allowed unless the prosecution wants them there, which is rare.

There is another option I've seen and that is to have a 3-day mini trial. They cover all the evidence in open court, it is very time-consuming and they end up revealing any tricks they might have, so this is not desireable.

So, with all this secrecy, the prosecutor can lie their asses off without fear of being exposed. I can see why the GJ should be sealed until after all proceedings, but why is it then sealed forever? Could it be that a member of the grand jury could come forward after a trial and conviction and say that the prosecutor lied at the GJ and had he/she told the truth, there would have been not indictment? Would it throw yet another black eye upon the already shady nature of prosecutions?

This, to me, is one of the nastiest aspects of the US. We brag all this, "open book" nature of our government, yet even in a state trial we can't keep from being secetive. Does this seem as sleezy to others as it does to me? What is any advantage of sealing the GJ testimony after the trial?

[freeflir29 0]

What if you are a defendant........someone has accused you of something nasty and a prosecutor has a hard on for you for whatever reason. In spite of this the Grand Jury decides that there is no case against you. Is it fair now that the info is released and now your name gets slandered to holy hell? The info is sealed to protect the defendant. NOT anyone else. So..........I think you can put away the conspiracy theories on this one.

[lawrocket 3]

Aren't rumors amazing things? Rumors do not work in a court of law. They do, however, work in the court of public opinion.

Rumor and circumstance, etc., are often brought into grand jury proceedings, where the grand jury decides if there is enough evidence on its own to convict someone. No defense, nothing. Just, "is there enough to meet the elements of the crime?"

The release of this information that is purely one-sided is difficult. Let's say that sealed grand jury testimony revealed concerns that Lucky is a child molester. Now, let's assume a reporter gets ahol dof it through a leak and publishes, "Lucky under grand jury investigation for child molestation."

Guess what happens to Lucky's reputation. KAPUT! Regardless of the truth. It doesn't have to be proveable in court to destroy your life and relationships. Like it or not, the suspicion will ALWAYS be there.

This is why results of a fundamentally one-sided event should not be published.

These grand jury proceedings are sealed BECAUSE of the danger of the effects on people who may be innocent. It may be good for a reporter's career to get a good story. IT may be a nice lurid story for people to read and comment upon in speaker's corner. But to that innocent soul, it's pretty fucked up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

But to that innocent soul, it's pretty fucked up.

You're telling me?!?!?!?!?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What if you are a defendant........someone has accused you of something nasty and a prosecutor has a hard on for you for whatever reason. In spite of this the Grand Jury decides that there is no case against you. Is it fair now that the info is released and now your name gets slandered to holy hell? The info is sealed to protect the defendant. NOT anyone else. So..........I think you can put away the conspiracy theories on this one.

Sorry, then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever. These are not sealed but in extremely rare cases. Furthermore, the defendant doesn't have access to these proceedings before, during or after, so the, "need of the defendant" claim you are making is also void on that principle.

Furthermore, you wrote in your example that the GJ failed to indict, so what about cases where the defendant is tried and convicted (I covered tried and acquitted above), how is it slanderous of the state gov to make such information public? You're out of gas again.

There is no conspiracy here, alleged or otherwise. Go look up the definition for that and you will better understand how the thought of a conspiracy was never alleged by me or anyone.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

Because trials are public. Grand Juries are not. Why are trials public? If you have ever read any criminal court filing it usually states defendant Vs. the people of whatever municipality. You're talking about apples and oranges here. I never said anything about trials. Till now.........

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Aren't rumors amazing things? Rumors do not work in a court of law. They do, however, work in the court of public opinion.

Rumor and circumstance, etc., are often brought into grand jury proceedings, where the grand jury decides if there is enough evidence on its own to convict someone. No defense, nothing. Just, "is there enough to meet the elements of the crime?"

The release of this information that is purely one-sided is difficult. Let's say that sealed grand jury testimony revealed concerns that Lucky is a child molester. Now, let's assume a reporter gets ahol dof it through a leak and publishes, "Lucky under grand jury investigation for child molestation."

Guess what happens to Lucky's reputation. KAPUT! Regardless of the truth. It doesn't have to be proveable in court to destroy your life and relationships. Like it or not, the suspicion will ALWAYS be there.

This is why results of a fundamentally one-sided event should not be published.

These grand jury proceedings are sealed BECAUSE of the danger of the effects on people who may be innocent. It may be good for a reporter's career to get a good story. IT may be a nice lurid story for people to read and comment upon in speaker's corner. But to that innocent soul, it's pretty fucked up.

Although I appreciate your response, let's use GUY X rather than me, k?

Ok, I understand all that you've said there, but how do we justify the sealing of GJ records after trial, conviction and all appeals, except of course unlimitied Habeus Corpus? There could be no harm done there, right? Oh, I forgot, if the public knew of how the prosecutor lied their ass off to get the indicment it might curtail their conviction machine that they so adore. The public might wise-up and refuse to indict and convict so easily if they knew of the lies that are disseminated during these secretive proceedings.

To adress the rumors assertion, these rumors circulate around the media pre-trail anyway, so potential jurors are going to hear them, so there is no advantage when we seal the GJ records, especially after conviction.

Your theory can work, although I don;t think that is the real reason, but it can work on acquittal, but not conviction, so please explain that.

Quote

These grand jury proceedings are sealed BECAUSE of the danger of the effects on people who may be innocent.

Again, how about after conviction and appeals?

[lawrocket 3]

Second part of comment:

If I were under investigation, I think I'd prefer a grand jury. I'll put it this way - the job of the grand jury is there only to make sure that the prosecution has evidence to form a prima facie case.

Let's say the prosecutor wants to charge Lucky with the murder of Unlucky (sorry - the names just work too well). To prove murder in this state, he needs to have evidence to prove each of the following (note - this is not an actual statute):

1) That Lucky intended to kill Unlucky (mens rea);
2) That Lucky performed an act; and
3) That act killed Unlucky within one year;

Let's say he has evidence to show that Lucky intended to kill Unlucky, Lucky injected unlucky with a substance that stopped Unlucky's heart, but there is no evidence that Lucky died within one year. The grand jury would say, "Prosecutor, you don't have the elements satisfied because we don't know when Unlucky died. We cannot issue an indictment yet."

Prosecutor comes back a week later with evidence that Lucky died within one minute of the injection. Grand jury says, "Okay. We've met the elements. Charge him."

So Lucky get's indicted for murder. But Lucky has a defense - the law states that a person cannot be convicted of any homicide if the act was justified. A subsection states that "Persons appointed by the governor to perform lethal injections cannot be found guilty of a homicide in such homicide is from the performance of job duties pursuant to a death warrant signed by a judge." This is an affirmative defense - assuming everything the Prosecutor says is true, Lucky cannot be convicted.

It turns out Lucky was employed by the Department of Corrections, and Unlucky was a prisoner who was executed. Lucky was the person who performed the lethal injection pursuant to a death warrant signed by the judge, and the governor appointed Lucky for that purpose. Lucky can now defend himself in court and win.

So, Lucky gets his chance to defend himself. This is a VAST oversimplification of the process, but it's how it is supposed to work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Sorry, then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

Because the accused had the chance to defend himself. That's a pretty important thing, dontcha think?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

Because trials are public. Grand Juries are not. Why are trials public? If you have ever read any criminal court filing it usually states defendant Vs. the people of whatever municipality. You're talking about apples and oranges here. I never said anything about trials. Till now.........

Quote

Because trials are public. Grand Juries are not.

That's not an answer, that is just a restatement of this issue

Quote

If you have ever read any criminal court filing it usually states defendant Vs. the people of whatever municipality.

This is laughable right from the start. Defendant Vs State? Bahahahaha, please, you're splitting my side with this humor. Uh, hate to break it to you but the state is versing the defendant.

Uh, I think the question should be reversed. Oh, so are you saying that GJ hearings occur only when charges are not filed? WRONG. GJ can occurr (often are) with filed charges. And that filing reads: State vs X. So your process of the GJ hearing not being state Vs X (reverse in ur example) is duplicated, not different with both the GJ and the trial.

Quote

You're talking about apples and oranges here.

No, the GJ, if neccessary, is part of the same series of events that include the trial, so this is all part of the same action/sequence.

Quote

I never said anything about trials. Till now

But to pretend that teh GJ hearing and thetrial are worlds apart is inane. In serious cases there must be a GJ or direct filing/mini trial directly before the pre-trial/trial. It's teh same action, just in a different phase of it.

To sever them is to say that the exit from an acft is in no way related to the subsequent chute deployment, 60 seconds later.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Uh, hate to break it to you but the state is versing the defendant.

That's great that you are so smart..........but why does that have ANY relevance here? You asked why a trial is public........ummm........because "The People" are prosecuting...........that's why.

Quote

That's not an answer, that is just a restatement of this issue

Did you grow up near power lines? I answered that one in the first post. Lawrocket has as well.

Quote

No, the GJ, if neccessary, is part of the same series of events that include the trial, so this is all part of the same action/sequence.

If that were true a trial would take place whether the GJ handed down an indictment or not.

Quote

It's teh same action, just in a different phase of it.

Ummm............no it's not. They have COMPLETELY differen't objectives. A GJ decides if there is enough evidence to indict. A trial decides a finding of guilt or innocence. It's really not hard to understand.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Second part of comment:

If I were under investigation, I think I'd prefer a grand jury. I'll put it this way - the job of the grand jury is there only to make sure that the prosecution has evidence to form a prima facie case.

Let's say the prosecutor wants to charge Lucky with the murder of Unlucky (sorry - the names just work too well). To prove murder in this state, he needs to have evidence to prove each of the following (note - this is not an actual statute):

1) That Lucky intended to kill Unlucky (mens rea);
2) That Lucky performed an act; and
3) That act killed Unlucky within one year;

Let's say he has evidence to show that Lucky intended to kill Unlucky, Lucky injected unlucky with a substance that stopped Unlucky's heart, but there is no evidence that Lucky died within one year. The grand jury would say, "Prosecutor, you don't have the elements satisfied because we don't know when Unlucky died. We cannot issue an indictment yet."

Prosecutor comes back a week later with evidence that Lucky died within one minute of the injection. Grand jury says, "Okay. We've met the elements. Charge him."

So Lucky get's indicted for murder. But Lucky has a defense - the law states that a person cannot be convicted of any homicide if the act was justified. A subsection states that "Persons appointed by the governor to perform lethal injections cannot be found guilty of a homicide in such homicide is from the performance of job duties pursuant to a death warrant signed by a judge." This is an affirmative defense - assuming everything the Prosecutor says is true, Lucky cannot be convicted.

It turns out Lucky was employed by the Department of Corrections, and Unlucky was a prisoner who was executed. Lucky was the person who performed the lethal injection pursuant to a death warrant signed by the judge, and the governor appointed Lucky for that purpose. Lucky can now defend himself in court and win.

So, Lucky gets his chance to defend himself. This is a VAST oversimplification of the process, but it's how it is supposed to work.

I asked nicely... OK, so let's say Lawrocket was charged with beastiality. Then he is convicted and sentenced. This is all public record including the following public rendering of his having to register as a sex offender. They include his address, offense level and type and any movements he is making. He is required to inform potential employers and landlords of all this information too, but the GJ hearing is sealed...... Lawrocket, laypeople may not understand the truth here, but I do. Lawyers enjoy having a little edge over other people; they get preference thru their relationships with judges and other prosecutors. There is a professional courtesy attitude amongst lawyers that affords them a free ride in many cases, so they want to defend teh system. WHAT HARM IS DONE AFTER CONVICTION TO DISCLOSE GJ TRANSCRIPTS?

Quote

3) That act killed Unlucky within one year;

Ahhhh, year and a day rule - for all laypeople.

You're entire story doesn't illustrate why GJ hearings shouldn't be made public after the trial.

Face it, you make your living from the system, the system is crooked, but your living, as with most people, is more important than the rectification of the system.

You have yet to explain how sealed GJ records protect anyone, especially after conviction.

Oh, I get it, they protect lying prosecutors.

[lawrocket 3]

They are worlds apart. The prosecutors will toss everything against the wall and hope that something sticks.

Look - I'm no fan of prosecutors. OUt of all attorneys out there, they are the ones that are in the unique position of operating without the fear of being sued for malpractice OR for malicious prosecution. When you have anybody who can operate without fear of getting sued, what do you think will generally happen.

What I think about grand juries are that they are to be an additional protection for possible defendants. In order to protect possible defendants, these records need to be sealed. Let whatever needs to come out come out in court where the accusations can be defended. If someone were talking shit about you, you'd want the oportunity to defend yourself. If there is no indictment, the talking shit fell upon deaf ears in the grand jury. If the grand jury testimony is unsealed, well, now you are forced to defend yourself to the public - I will represent to you that it is a far more difficult task than defending yourself in court.

To release the testimony would be a final "fuck you" to the defendant who may be innocent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

Because the accused had the chance to defend himself. That's a pretty important thing, dontcha think?

Nice cherry-picking. Here is the entire thought.

- GJ, indictment, conviction
- GJ sealed, indictment, trial records public

- GJ, indictment, acquittal
- GJ sealed, indictment, trial records public

There is no compelling interest in sealing the GJ records, especially when there is a conviction, except that it protects the prosecutors and perhaps abridges the defendant a chance at an appeal.

EXPLAIN WHY GJ TRANSCRIPTS ARE SEALED AFTER A CONVICTION.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

WHAT HARM IS DONE AFTER CONVICTION TO DISCLOSE GJ TRANSCRIPTS?

I do sorta agree with you there. However..........the problem is......there may have been evidence presented to the Grand Jury that was thrown out in pre trial or evidentury hearings. The rules of evidence are completely differen't for GJ and trial. So.......because that evidence was ruled "inadmissable" in a trial it is now NOT part of the public record. Hence.......the records must remain sealed. That's my .02C on it anyway.

[freeflir29 0]

Also..........you are saying records are sealed to hide prosecutors lies. If the prosecutor is lieing shouldn't you be able to prove that in open court?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Uh, hate to break it to you but the state is versing the defendant.

That's great that you are so smart..........but why does that have ANY relevance here? You asked why a trial is public........ummm........because "The People" are prosecuting...........that's why.

Quote

That's not an answer, that is just a restatement of this issue

Did you grow up near power lines? I answered that one in the first post. Lawrocket has as well.

Quote

No, the GJ, if neccessary, is part of the same series of events that include the trial, so this is all part of the same action/sequence.

If that were true a trial would take place whether the GJ handed down an indictment or not.

Quote

It's teh same action, just in a different phase of it.

Ummm............no it's not. They have COMPLETELY differen't objectives. A GJ decides if there is enough evidence to indict. A trial decides a finding of guilt or innocence. It's really not hard to understand.

Quote

That's great that you are so smart..........but why does that have ANY relevance here?

Hey, you called out that it was defendant Vs state…. If I’m not informed on an issue I try to be a little humble.

Quote

You asked why a trial is public........ummm........because "The People" are prosecuting...........that's why.

Where did I ask why trials are public? Please find it and post, not some rendition that you’ve altered.

Quote

Did you grow up near power lines?

Were you still-born?

Quote

I answered that one in the first post. Lawrocket has as well

No, you restated an issue, you wrote: “Because trials are public. Grand Juries are not.”

That is an obvious stated or inferred fact. We know this, I’m unclear as to the motive for which the system does this. WE ALREADY KNOW THIS FACT, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER ANYTHING HERE.

I wrote: No, the GJ, if neccessary, is part of the same series of events that include the trial, so this is all part of the same action/sequence.

Quote

If that were true a trial would take place whether the GJ handed down an indictment or not.

Obviously, I inferred that the indictment was handed down, as in 98% of cases from a GJ. So with that, when there is a GJ, indictment and trial, the GJ is all part of this arduous sequence of events. So now that I’ve had to specify that, address the original question.

Quote

Ummm............no it's not. They have COMPLETELY differen't objectives. A GJ decides if there is enough evidence to indict. A trial decides a finding of guilt or innocence. It's really not hard to understand.

What I originally wrote, “It's teh same action, just in a different phase of it.” It is the same action, ask Lawrocket. It is the same action that, in serious cases is preceded by a GJ or direct filing/mini trial. You’re splitting hairs to avoid the question.

Just a theory, are you a cop?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Just a theory, are you a cop?

I was going on 2 years ago..........but that has pretty much NO relevance here as I NOT once went to court as one. Unfortunately, I learned about law the hard way. I ended up in court.



OK...........be back in a few minutes to edit in all the other stuff.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Where did I ask why trials are public?

Ummm.........right here.

Quote

then explain how trials where the defendnat is acquitted of major crimes is considered public forever.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I’m unclear as to the motive for which the system does this.

Answered that one right here.

Quote

there may have been evidence presented to the Grand Jury that was thrown out in pre trial or evidentury hearings. The rules of evidence are completely differen't for GJ and trial.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I inferred that the indictment was handed down, as in 98% of cases from a GJ. So with that, when there is a GJ, indictment and trial, the GJ is all part of this arduous sequence of events.

You just said "98%" of cases. You are acting like it is written into law that an indictment WILL be handed down. That's not the case. So........in FACT.....they are completely seperate entities.



Oh........BTW..........just a theory. Are you a law student?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

WHAT HARM IS DONE AFTER CONVICTION TO DISCLOSE GJ TRANSCRIPTS?

I do sorta agree with you there. However..........the problem is......there may have been evidence presented to the Grand Jury that was thrown out in pre trial or evidentury hearings. The rules of evidence are completely differen't for GJ and trial. So.......because that evidence was ruled "inadmissable" in a trial it is now NOT part of the public record. Hence.......the records must remain sealed. That's my .02C on it anyway.

Thanks for addressing what Lawrocket refused to address.

There is no advantage to seal GJ transcripts, except that it makes life easier for prosecutors.

Quote

However..........the problem is......there may have been evidence presented to the Grand Jury that was thrown out in pre trial or evidentury hearings.

Well, it is still part of the pre-trial record, just refused to be heard at trial. This excluded evidence would be presented in open court, so I don't see how that is a factor.

Quote

The rules of evidence are completely differen't for GJ and trial. So.......because that evidence was ruled "inadmissable" in a trial it is now NOT part of the public record.

Not always, it is often sorted out in pre-trial hearings and part of the record, just not admitted. This is how many appeals are based; they refer to pre-trial motions to submit evidence, if they lose, they submit these into the appeal.

I appreciate your input, but since many of these evidentiary items are included in the court transcripts, I fail to see any advantage in sealing GJ transcripts.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

It is the same action, ask Lawrocket.

Ummm.........You already did.

Quote

They are worlds apart.

I sure hope you aren't an attorney. I had one just like you once. He was an attorney because he liked to argue. Regardless of the facts. That idiot cost me a lot of time, money, and heartache.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Also..........you are saying records are sealed to hide prosecutors lies. If the prosecutor is lieing shouldn't you be able to prove that in open court?

YES. We can't prove it because the GJ records are sealed.

IOW's, if you sat in on a GJ hearing and went to the trial for the same issue, you might think you had the wrong courtroom.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I appreciate your input, but since many of these evidentiary items are included in the court transcripts, I fail to see any advantage in sealing GJ transcripts.

I don't know how to put this in any more of a plain way. The evidence was NOT introduced in the trial. As in to the trial jury. So........the defendant NEVER had an opportunity to defend himself against that evidence except for when his attorney got it thrown out for whatever reason. If the GJ files are made public........he now has to defend himself in the "Court of Public Opinion." If that doesn't convince you of why they are sealed.......nothing will and my part of this conversation is done.