With grand juries meeting in secret failing to indict police officers in the high profile killings of unarmed citizens, Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York, there has been a swell of criticism of the use of secret proceedings in such cases and their value in an open, democratic society. Editor George E. Curry, Frost Illustrated, December 16, 2014, criticized the grand jury system for its lack of due process. “Attorneys for the victims are not allowed to attend. Witnesses are not cross-examined to gauge their veracity. Even evidence that might cast doubt on a person’s innocence is not required to be placed before the grand jury,” wrote Curry.
The controversy has intensified as protestors, lawyers, academics and public officials are questioning a system that results in almost 100 percent indictments except in cases of police officers assaulting unarmed men of color. A California public defender Brendon Woods said secrecy is damaging the legitimacy of the grand jury process. “If It’s done in public, we get rid of that secrecy and people are watching to make sure all evidence is put forth and the judge decides whether the prosecutor has met the burden or not,” said Woods. (San Francisco Chronicle, December 14, 2014, by Melody Gutierrez)
In the New York case a public advocate and the New York Civil Liberties Union is asking the judge to release the evidence presented to the grand jury. There are “many questions as to whether secret grand jury proceedings are instruments of injustice and whether the grand jury system should be abolished. The Garner grand jury is central to that public discussion. And it is important to that conversation for the public to know how and why the grand jury reached the conclusions that it did,” said NYCLU’s Donna Lieberman. (Bloomberg News, December 12, 2014, by Chris Dolmetsch)