BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2011-2012 Regular Session


          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          As Amended May 27, 2011
          Hearing Date: July 5, 2011
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          RD
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                                 Civil Grand Juries

                                      DESCRIPTION 

          This bill would require that a civil grand jury meet with the 
          chief executive or department head of an agency under 
          investigation to discuss the nature of the investigation and to 
          receive input on the report at least 45 days prior to the 
          issuance of its final report.   

          This bill would also permit any witness called to testify before 
          a civil grand jury to have counsel present on his or her behalf 
          while giving sworn testimony, except as provided. The ability to 
          have counsel present during sworn testimony would be subject to 
          specified limitations, including that the counsel shall not 
          object to questions asked or disclose anything heard in the 
          grand jury room. 

          This bill would also provide that any witness who is the subject 
          of the grand jury investigation has the right to disclose, in 
          writing, exculpatory evidence.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          The California Constitution requires each county to draw and 
          summon at least one grand jury a year.  (Cal. Const. art. I, 
          sec. 23.)  Grand juries are bodies comprised of a certain number 
          of citizens of the county sworn to inquire of public offenses 
          committed or triable in the county, and may be both criminal and 
          civil.  (Pen. Code Sec. 888.)  The functions of a county grand 
          jury were broadly summarized in McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior 
                                                                (more)



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 2 of ?



          Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1170 as follows:  "The California 
          grand jury has three basic functions: to weigh criminal charges 
          and determine whether indictments should be returned; to weigh 
          allegations of misconduct against public officials and determine 
          whether to present formal accusations requesting their removal 
          from office; and to act as the public's 'watchdog' by 
          investigating and reporting upon the affairs of local 
          government.  Of these functions, the watchdog role is by far the 
          one most often played by the modern grand jury in California."  

          In this latter role, grand juries have a duty to inquire into 
          "county matters of civil concern," and thereby have the 
          authority to inquire about unindicted prisoners, to investigate 
          county prisons, and the willful or corrupt misconduct in office 
          of public officers within the county; the authority to 
          investigate ownership, transfer, or sale of real property; the 
          authority to investigate the operations, accounts and records of 
          county officers, departments, or functions; and the authority to 
          investigate the books and records of cities or joint powers 
          agencies.  (Pen. Code Secs. 919, 920, 925, 925(a).)  

          California law requires each grand jury to submit to the 
          presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its 
          findings and recommendations that pertain to county government 
          matters during the fiscal or calendar year, and permits for a 
          final report to also be submitted to responsible officers, 
          agencies, or departments for comment after the presiding judge 
          has found to be in compliance with Title 4 of Part 2 of the 
          Penal Code (Grand Jury Proceedings).  Under current law, for 45 
          days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her 
          designees must, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify 
          the recommendations of the report.  (Pen. Code Sec. 933(a).)  In 
          addition, a grand jury is permitted, upon approval of the 
          presiding or supervising judge, as to any matter not subject to 
          privilege, to make available to the public evidentiary material, 
          findings, and other information relied upon by, or presented to, 
          a grand jury for its final report in any civil grand jury 
          investigation.  (Pen. Code Sec. 929.)  

          This bill seeks to enhance the accountability and accuracy of 
          grand jury reports by requiring that a civil grand jury, at 
          least 45 days prior to the issuance of its final report, to meet 
          with the chief executive or department head of an agency under 
          investigation to discuss the nature of the investigation and 
          receive input.  

                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 3 of ?



          This bill would also provide for the ability of any witness 
          called to testify under oath before a civil grand jury to have 
          counsel present during his or her testimony, except as 
          specified.  In addition, this bill would not grant witnesses any 
          constitutional right to counsel, nor would it grant the 
          subpoenaed witness any discovery rights, but it would provide a 
          witness who is the subject of the investigation the right to 
          disclose, in writing, exculpatory evidence, as specified.  

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  provides that one or more grand juries shall be 
          drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.  (Cal. 
          Const. art. I, sec. 23; Pen. Code Sec. 905.)   

           Existing law  provides that each grand jury or, if more than one 
          has been duly impaneled as specified, one grand jury in each 
          county shall be charged and sworn to investigate or inquire into 
          county matters of civil concern.  (Pen. Code Sec. 888.)

           Existing law  requires the grand jury to investigate and report 
          on the operations, accounts, and records of officers, 
          departments, or functions of the county or district, as 
          specified.  (Pen. Code Sec. 925.)

           Existing law  requires the court to, in consultation with the 
          district attorney, the county counsel, and at least one former 
          grand juror, ensure that a grand jury which considers or takes 
          action on civil matters receives training that addresses, at a 
          minimum, report writing, interviews, and the scope of the grand 
          jury's responsibility and statutory authority.  (Pen. Code Sec. 
          914(b).)

           Existing law  allows, as to any matter not subject to privilege, 
          with the approval of the presiding judge of the superior court 
          or supervising judge, a grand jury to make available to the 
          public part or all of the evidentiary material, findings, and 
          other information relied upon by, or presented to, a grand jury 
          for its final report in any civil grand jury investigation, 
          provided that the name of any person, or facts that lead to the 
          identity of any person who provided information to the grand 
          jury is not released.  (Pen. Code Sec. 929.)  

           Existing law  requires each grand jury to submit to the presiding 
          judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and 
          recommendations that pertain to county government matters during 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 4 of ?



          the fiscal or calendar year.  Existing law also provides that a 
          final report may be submitted for comment to responsible 
          officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board 
          of supervisors, when applicable, upon the presiding judge's 
          approval of the report, as specified.  For 45 days after the end 
          of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees, upon 
          reasonable notice, must be available to clarify the 
          recommendations of the report.  (Pen. Code Sec. 933(a).)

           Existing law  requires that: 
           that the governing body of any public agency subject to the 
            reviewing authority of the grand jury comment to the presiding 
            judge on the findings and recommendations pertaining to 
            matters under its control, no later than 90 days after the 
            grand jury submits a final report on the operations of that 
            public agency; and
           every elected county officer or agency head must comment to 
            the presiding judge on the findings and recommendations 
            pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer 
            or agency head and any agency and agencies which he or she 
            supervisors or controls within 60 days.  (Pen. Code Sec. 
            933(c).)  

           Existing law  requires that, during an investigation, the grand 
          jury meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the 
          investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination 
          or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines 
          that such a meeting would be detrimental.  (Pen. Code Sec. 
          933.05(e).) 

           Existing law  requires that, a grand jury shall provide to the 
          affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report 
          relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its 
          public release and after the approval of the presiding judge.  
          Existing law also prohibits any officer, agency, department, or 
          governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents 
          of the report prior to the public release of the final report.  
          (Pen. Code Sec. 933.05(f).)   

           This bill  would require, at least 45 days prior to the issuance 
          of its final report, that a civil grand jury meet with the chief 
          executive or department head of an agency under investigation to 
          discuss the nature of the investigation and to receive input 
          from that chief executive or department. 

           This bill  would permit any witness who is called to give 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 5 of ?



          testimony under oath before a civil grand jury to have counsel 
          present on his or her behalf while testifying.  This bill would 
          provide, however, that the right to counsel would not apply if a 
          corporation is the subject of the investigation and the witness 
          is an employee or officer of the corporation and not the subject 
          of the grand jury investigation.  

           This bill  would provide that counsel present before the grand 
          jury: 
           shall not object to any questions asked of the witness or 
            otherwise speak to the grand jury, but may advise the witness 
            during the course of examination; 
           shall not disclose anything heard in the grand jury room; and 
           shall not represent more than one witness in the same 
            proceeding (this would also apply to any law firm representing 
            a witness).

           This bill  would permit a prosecuting attorney to make a motion 
          to the presiding judge for sanctions against counsel who is 
          representing a witness and refer the violation to the State Bar 
          of California. 

           This bill would provide that any witness who is the subject of 
          the grand jury investigation has the right to disclose, in 
          writing, exculpatory evidence, including the names and address 
          of witnesses who possess exculpatory information, to the 
          prosecutor.  

           This bill  would clarify that nothing in the section shall be 
          construed to grant a witness a constitutional right to counsel 
          under the U.S. or California Constitutions, nor grant any 
          discovery right for the subpoenaed witness.  

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author: 

            This bill would bring accountability and accuracy to written 
            grand jury reports by requiring the grand jury to meet with 
            the head of a targeted agency or department for review of a 
            report for accurate facts.  This bill would also allow . . . 
            witnesses permission to have counsel present during their 
            testimony to a grand jury performing its civil investigative 
            function.   
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 6 of ?




            California has had grand juries since the state's inception, 
            stating that "grand juries shall be drawn and summoned at 
            least once a year in each county."  ÝFootnote omitted.]  There 
            are many examples of grand juries over the last 150 years 
            effectively uncovering waste, fraud and abuse in local 
            jurisdictions.  However, there is also considerable criticism 
            of the grand jury system.  Critics decry juror ineptitute, 
            politically motivated jurors and abuse of the considerable 
            power that grand juries possess.  Additionally, the 
            recommendations of the grand jury are often ignored or not 
            implemented because they are impractical, infeasible, 
            unaffordable, or simply based on completely fabricated facts. 
            . . . 

            Historically, grand juries operate entirely in secret, with 
            all parties barred from any public discussion of the grand 
            jury's actions.  The only information that the public may 
            glean from a grand jury investigation is a written report that 
            may be issued at the end of an investigation containing 
            recommendations.  

            Current law does not allow any witness, including the target 
            of an investigation, to have counsel present during their 
            testimony to the grand jury.  Often the witness will have 
            retained counsel, but counsel must remain outside the room 
            resulting in an almost comedic routine of the jurors asking a 
            question, the witness leaving the room to consult with 
            counsel, and then returning to answer the question.  

          2.    Importance of confidentiality to grand jury investigations 
          and the "watchdog" role  

          This bill seeks to allow counsel to be present during the 
          testimony of a witness before a civil grand jury, except under a 
          limited circumstance.  Grand jury proceedings historically do 
          not allow for third parties, including counsel, to enter the 
          room of a grand jury proceeding, though a witness could still 
          otherwise retain counsel in preparation for the investigation.  
          At several points, legislation has been introduced in California 
          to allow for counsel to be present during testimony of a 
          witness.  Most of these bills have died short of the governor's 
          desk, with one getting vetoed in 2000.  (See Prior Legislation 
          and Comment 2b below for further comment).    

            a.    Previous legislation on counsel in grand jury proceedings
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 7 of ?




             This bill would allow a witness who is testifying before a 
            civil grand jury to bring his or her counsel into the grand 
            jury room, except where the witness is an employee or officer 
            of a corporation that is the subject of the investigation and 
            the witness is not himself or herself the subject of the grand 
            jury investigation.  The bill would permit the counsel to 
            advise the witness during his or her testimony but would 
            prohibit counsel from making any objections to questions, 
            disclosing anything heard in the grand jury room, or 
            representing more than one witness in the same proceeding. 
            This bill would also allow a prosecutor to seek sanctions 
            against counsel if counsel violates any of those limiting-type 
            provisions, and would further permit that the prosecutor refer 
            the violation to the State Bar of California.  Finally, the 
            bill explicitly clarifies that it should not in any way be 
            construed to grant a witness a right to counsel under the U.S. 
            or state constitutions. 

            The provisions of this bill are almost identical to the ones 
            contained in a bill vetoed by Governor Gray Davis, AB 527 
            (Baugh, 2000).  (Unlike this bill, however, AB 527 applied to 
            all grand juries, including criminal, and applied only to 
            witnesses who were the subject matter of the investigation.)  
            In his veto message, Governor Gray Davis commented that: 

               The current operation of the grand jury, which follows 
               English common law practice, has remained essentially 
               unchanged since California was admitted to the Union in 
               1850 and has served us well for 150 years.  Thus, any major 
               departures from existing practice warrants thorough and 
               thoughtful consideration and debate within the legal 
               community and among legal scholars. . . . 

               AB 527 would place a new burden on what is now a reasonably 
               effective grand jury system.  Additionally, the presence of 
               defense counsel in grand jury proceedings may lead to undue 
               delays and interference with the grand jury's "fact finding 
               process."  The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is an 
               essential element of the grand jury process.  AB 527 has 
               the potential for turning "a fact finding process" into a 
               quasi-adversarial proceeding.

            Because this bill addresses only civil grand juries and not 
            criminal grand juries, any references to prosecutors would 
            arguably need to be removed.  Such amendments, however, would 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 8 of ?



            not be sufficient to address the concerns that arise from 
            these provisions.  As mentioned by then-Governor Davis's veto, 
            secrecy is vital to the grand jury process.  In this way, the 
            operation of grand juries is unique from most any other part 
            of the American system of government that favors transparency 
            and openness and that generally adheres to the principle that 
            the public has a right to access all official documents and 
            proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances.  With respect 
            to grand jury proceedings, it is the rule-not the exception-to 
            maintain secrecy.  At its core, a grand jury is a secret 
            tribunal and the disclosure of grand jury materials is 
            strictly limited.  This is to allow a grand jury the ability 
            to perform its investigatory function without interference or 
            influence.  As such, there are a number of concerns that arise 
            when the confidentiality of these proceedings is disrupted, as 
            discussed further below. 

            b.    Impact of permitting the presence of counsel during 
            testimony of a witness  

            As stated in the McClatchy Newspapers case, of the three basic 
            functions of a California grand jury, its function as the 
            public's "watchdog" by investigating and reporting on the 
            affairs of local government is the one most often played in 
            the modern grand jury.  (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior 
            Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1170.)  It is arguably also one 
            of its most important in a system of government that relies on 
            various checks and balances.  In performing this important 
            watchdog role over government, secrecy enables the grand jury 
            to operate independently and affords them the ability to be 
            free of any outside influence or pressure that can alter the 
            direction of an investigation's course and it enables them the 
            freedom to delve into all potentially relevant matters without 
            inhibition of the rules of procedure and evidence.  This is 
            not to controvert any person's rights, but to create an 
            atmosphere that promotes the divulgence of any information 
            pertinent to the truth.  This becomes increasingly important 
            when seeking to uncover any official misconduct.  

            Indeed, courts have held that openness of grand jury 
            proceedings is the exception and is permitted only where 
            expressly provided by statute.  (20A Cal Jur Criminal Law: 
            Pretrial Proceedings Sec. 706 (citations omitted).)  "Viewing 
            that statutory scheme as a whole, it appears that the 
            Legislature intended disclosure of grand jury materials to be 
            strictly limited."  (Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 9 of ?



            (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 1124.) 

            The presence of counsel during testimony, as this bill would 
            allow, raises questions about potential unintended 
            consequences.  While the author points to numerous states 
            having adopted similar provisions and the fact that a witness 
            may leave the grand jury room during testimony to consult his 
            or her attorney standing outside the room, allowing counsel 
            into the grand jury room would be a significant change in this 
            state's treatment of grand juries and their ability to carry 
            out their duties.  "California's grand juries, from early 
            statehood, have examined conditions in jails, treatment of 
            indigent patients, accounting matters, taxation issues, public 
            works, and law enforcement.  During the early twentieth 
            century, a number of states reformed their grand juries and 
            ceded power to the district attorneys.  Similar reform efforts 
            failed in California because grand juries had gained the 
            reputation as 'enemies of municipal corruption.'"  (Reform of 
            the California Grand Jury System, Michael Vitiello and Clark 
            Kelso (2002) 35 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 513, 521 (citations 
            omitted).)  Thus, such a change in the fundamental operations 
            of California grand juries raises the question of whether 
            public policy in California favors altering grand juries' 
            existing ability to conduct proceedings away from the eyes, 
            ears, and influence of third parties.  

            By allowing counsel into the room, the information flow to the 
            grand jury will necessarily be restricted as well.  In turn, 
            the ability of the grand jury to obtain necessary information 
            relating to a needed change in local government policies or to 
            any local government misconduct that the public needs to be 
            made aware of, could be significantly impacted.  Such a change 
            would deviate from the longstanding policy decision in 
            California to choose secrecy over transparency in grand jury 
            proceedings. 

            Moreover, as argued by the California District Attorneys 
            Association (CDAA), it is possible that such legislation could 
            be used to justify a similar change in the criminal grand jury 
            system as well.  Criminal grand juries are often used to 
            determine if there is sufficient information to bring charges 
            against an individual(s).  In fact, the primary duty of a 
            grand jury investigating criminal offenses is to clear the 
            innocent as much as bring to trial those who may be guilty, 
            and its opinion that a crime may have been committed by a 
            certain individual amounts to no more than a conclusion that 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 10 of ?



            the case should be tried by a jury of that person's peers.  
            (See U.S. v. Dionisio (1973) 410 U.S. 1, Berardi v. Superior 
            Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 476, and People v. Brown (1927) 
            81 Cal.App. 226.)  Making it a quasi-adversarial procedure can 
            significantly impact the ability of a criminal grand jury to 
            determine whether charges should or should not be brought, 
            potentially interfering with the carriage of justice and the 
            effectiveness of this state's criminal justice system could be 
            severely impacted.  

            Accordingly, the Committee should consider whether a five year 
                           sunset should be added to this bill.  That sunset would allow 
            the Legislature to review the impact that the proposed changes 
            have upon the ability of grand juries to carry out their 
            investigatory responsibilities and to review whether the 
            integrity of the confidential nature of civil grand jury 
            proceedings is effectively maintained by the provisions of 
            this bill prohibiting counsel from disclosing the information 
            learned during the proceedings.  The bill should also be 
            amended to clarify the provisions relating to counsel, and 
            strike out unnecessary language relating to exculpatory 
            evidence.

                Suggested amendments:  

               1) On page 3, line 31, after "disclose" insert "or use"

               2) On page 3, line 31, after "room" insert "other than in 
               the representation of the witness he or she represents." 

               3) On page 3, strike lines 36 through 39

               4) On page 4, strike lines 1-8 and insert "(b) Any 
               violation of this section by any counsel shall be a 
               violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and should 
               be reported to the State Bar of California.

               (c)  This section shall be repealed on January 1, 2017, 
               unless otherwise extended by statute."  

               5) On page 4, line 9, strike "(e)" and insert "(d)"




          3.    Reporting obligations of a grand jury  
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 11 of ?




          Grand jury investigations, while incredibly secretive, 
          ultimately result in reports for public consumption.  These 
          reports are first submitted to the presiding judge for review, 
          to ensure that the report is in compliance with California law 
          on grand jury proceedings.  (Pen. Code Sec. 933.)  Arguing that 
          additional accuracy and accountability is needed for grand jury 
          reports, this bill seeks to require that at least 45 days before 
          a final report is issued, the civil grand jury meet with the 
          chief executive or department head of an agency under 
          investigation to discuss the nature of the investigation and to 
          receive input on the report.  

          Existing law takes measures of accountability and accuracy for 
          grand jury reports, while balancing against the concern that 
          grand jury reports remain untainted.  First, a grand jury is 
          required to meet with the subject of the investigation, unless 
          the court determines that such a meeting would be detrimental, 
          and it is also required to provide the affected agency with a 
          copy of the portion of the report relating to that person or 
          entity two days prior to its public release and after approval 
          of the presiding judge.  (Pen. Code Secs. 933(e)-(f).)  Also 
          upon the approval of the report by the presiding judge that the 
          report is in compliance with existing law sections on the powers 
          and duties of the grand jury, a final report may be submitted 
          for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments.  
          For 45 days after the end of their terms and the release of that 
          report, the foreman and his or her designees must be available, 
          with reasonable notice, in order to provide any clarification 
          necessary about the recommendations of its report.  (Pen. Code 
          Sec. 933(a).)  

          In addition, existing law requires that no later than 90 days 
          after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of 
          a public agency to its reviewing authority, the governing body 
          of that agency shall comment to the presiding judge on the 
          findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the 
          control of that governing body.  Similarly, every elected county 
          officer or agency head for which the grand jury has 
          responsibility shall comment within 60 days to the presiding 
          judge on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters 
          under his or her control.  (Pen. Code Sec. 933(c).)  Among the 
          responses that are allowed, is the option to outline why a grand 
          jury's recommendations will not be implemented where those 
          recommendations are not warranted or not reasonable.  (Pen. Code 
          Sec. 933.05(b)(4).)
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 12 of ?




          Also, if questions arise as to the basis for a grand jury 
          report's conclusions, Committee staff notes that the Penal Code 
          authorizes the disclosure of evidentiary material where the 
          identity of the person disclosing the information is removed, 
          upon approval of the presiding judge.  (Penal Code Sec. 929.)  

          The author argues that grand jury reports often get facts 
          incorrect and cause great harm in doing so to the agencies and 
          officials under their investigation.  While egregious errors 
          that rise to the level of defamation are not protected by 
          existing law, even with respect to grand jurors, as noted by the 
          author, it is beneficial for all parties involved if those 
          errors can be reduced ahead of the release of the report.  This 
          bill would allow for an additional level of review by putting 
          the grand jury and the entity or person subject to investigation 
          in the same room to discuss the report, 45 days in advance.  At 
          the same time however, it is important to protect grand juries 
          and their reports from any taint by public officials and 
          agencies that may not wish to see certain information released 
          to the public that the public arguably has a right to know.  
          This is particularly true in the case where a grand jury may be 
          accusing an official of severe misconduct.  In such instances, 
          it may not be appropriate to require that the grand jury meet 
          with the official or agency.  The following amendments would 
          address these concerns by providing the presiding judge, or the 
          judge supervising the grand jury in his or her place, to waive 
          the requirement where circumstances warrant such a waiver, while 
          still requiring that the meeting take place in the majority of 
          investigations.   Further, by reducing the time limit to 21 
          days, the concern that a party under investigation could unduly 
          influence the grand jury into changing their report would be 
          mitigated. 

            On page 2, line 5, strike "45 days" and insert "21 days"  

            On page 2, line 6, strike "report." and insert "report, unless 
            the presiding judge or supervising judge, either on his or her 
            own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the 
            grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be 
            detrimental."

          4.    Opposition to the bill

           The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), in 
          opposition to this bill, states that, "Ýw]e acknowledge and 
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 13 of ?



          appreciate that amendments have been taken to remove the 
          provision that required civil grand jury proceedings to be open 
          to the public.  However, CDAA must remain opposed given the 
          retention of the language that permits a person to have counsel 
          present while testifying.  We feel this change, though limited 
          to situations in which a person is giving testimony under oath 
          to a civil grand jury, deviates from the longstanding method in 
          which grand juries have operated and is unnecessary.  Also, we 
          are concerned that such a change to the civil grand jury system 
          would be used to bootstrap a similar change to the criminal 
          grand jury system in the future."  

          Also in opposition, the California Grand Juries Association 
          remarks that: 

            Other sections of existing law are inconsistent with allowing 
            presence of attorneys in grand jury proceedings.  Section 934 
            prohibits the presence of even the judge or county counsel as 
            to civil matters at grand jury sessions unless the grand jury 
            asks for advice.  Grand jurors take an oath not to disclose 
            any evidence brought before the grand jury (section 911).  
            Existing statutes also prohibit and criminalize such 
            disclosure of evidence (sections 924.1 and 924.2)Ý.]  There 
            has been no attempt to reconcile these prohibits with 
            authorizing attorneys to be present grand jury sessions . . . 

            The overwhelming number of witnesses interviewed by a grand 
            jury will be county (and other local government) employees 
            concerning their official duties.  Accordingly, section 939.22 
            would add a major burden to the offices of county counsel to 
            represent these employees at their interviews.  The cost of 
            this additional burden would be substantial.  County counsel 
            representation of witnesses before a grand jury would also 
            constitute a conflict of interest since county counsel also 
            represents the grand jury. . . . 

            Aside from the expense and potential disruption, attorneys' 
            presence t grand jury interviews will clearly compromise a 
            grand jury's ability to work confidentially and may transform 
            interviews into adversarial hearings.  . . . ÝThe author] says 
            he is trying to avoid having attorneys have to sit outside the 
            jury room to answer questions from a witness during the 
            interview.  But in our experience with grand juries throughout 
            the State, this circumstance rarely exists in actuality. 


                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 14 of ?



           Support :  California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS 
          (CAPA); California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

           Opposition  :  Adam Hill, Supervisor, District Three of San Luis 
          Obispo County; Bill Dodd, Supervisor, Napa County Board of 
          Supervisors; California District Attorneys Association (CDAA); 
          California Grand Jurors Association (CGJA)

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Author

           Related Pending Legislation  :  AB 1133 (Silva) would require a 
          grand juror who is an employee of, or who was employed within 
          the prior three years by, an agency within the civil grand 
          jury's investigative jurisdiction to inform the foreperson and 
          court of that fact and require the grand juror to recuse himself 
          or herself from participating in any grand jury civil 
          investigation of that agency.  This bill is on the Senate Floor. 


           Prior Legislation :

          AB 312 (Spitzer, 2004), among other things, would have permitted 
          a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to 
          the reviewing authority of the grand jury to be accompanied by 
          the evidentiary material, findings, and other information relied 
          upon by, or presented to, the grand jury for that final report.  
          This bill died after failing passage in the Assembly Committee 
          on Local Government.

          AB 527 (Baugh, 2000), See Comment 2a. 

          AB 502 (Burton, 1997), would have required a subpoena to notify 
          any witness not subject of a grand jury investigation, among 
          other things, that he or she has a right to have an attorney 
          present during the grand jury examination.  This bill was 
          referred to the Committee on the Public Safety but was never 
          heard in committee.   

          AB 503 (Burton, 1997), would have required a prosecutor to 
          notify any witness who is the subject of a grand jury 
          investigation, among other things, that he or she has a right to 
          have an attorney present during the grand jury investigation.  
          This bill was referred to the Committee on the Public Safety but 
          was never heard in committee.
                                                                      



          AB 622 (Dickinson)
          Page 15 of ?




           Prior Vote  :

          Assembly Floor (Ayes 66, Noes 8)
          Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 5)
          Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 4) 

                                   **************