BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1906
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2008
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1906 (Cook) - As Introduced: February 16, 2010
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of the County of San Bernardino, or the judge appointed by the
presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, to impanel an
additional civil grand jury, for a term to be determined by the
presiding or supervising judge, in accordance with specified
procedures. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that, notwithstanding specified existing law, in the
County of San Bernardino the presiding judge of the superior
court, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to
supervise the grand jury, may, upon the request of the
Attorney General (AG) or the district attorney or upon his or
her own motion, order and direct the impanelment of an
additional civil grand jury pursuant to this section.
2)States that the presiding judge or the judge appointed by the
presiding judge to supervise the civil grand jury shall select
persons, at random, from the list of trial jurors in civil and
criminal cases and shall examine them to determine if they are
competent to serve as civil grand jurors. When a sufficient
number of competent persons have been selected, they shall
constitute an additional civil grand jury.
3)Provides that any additional civil grand jury that is
impaneled pursuant to this section may serve for a term as
determined by the presiding judge or the judge appointed by
the presiding judge to supervise the civil grand jury, but may
be discharged at any time within the set term by order of the
presiding judge or the judge appointed by the presiding judge
to supervise the grand jury. In no event shall more than one
additional grand jury be impaneled pursuant to this section at
the same time.
4)Provides that whenever an additional civil grand jury is
AB 1906
Page 2
impaneled pursuant to this section, they may inquire into
matters of oversight, conduct investigations, and may issue
reports and make recommendations except for any matters that
the regular grand jury is inquiring into at the time of its
impanelment. Any additional civil grand jury impaneled
pursuant to this section shall not have jurisdiction to issue
indictments.
5)States legislative intent that in the County of San Bernardino
all persons qualified for jury service shall have an equal
opportunity to be considered for service as criminal grand
jurors within the county, and that they have an obligation to
serve when summoned for that purpose. All persons selected
for an additional criminal grand jury shall be selected at
random from a source or sources reasonably representative of a
cross section of the population that is eligible for jury
service in the county.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that one or more grand juries shall be drawn and
summoned at least once a year in each county. [California
Constitution Article I, Section 23.]
2)Provides that in any county, or city and county, the presiding
judge of the superior court, or the judge appointed by the
presiding judge to supervise the grand jury may, upon the
request of the AG or the district attorney, or upon his or her
own motion, order and direct the impanelment of one additional
grand jury. [Penal Code Section 904.6(a).]
3)States that in any county having a population of more than
370,000 but less than 400,000, as established by the
Government Code, the presiding judge of the superior court,
upon application by the district attorney, may order and
direct the drawing and impanelment at any time of one
additional grand jury. [Penal Code Section 904.4(a).]
4)Provides that the presiding judge may select persons at random
from the list of trial jurors in civil and criminal cases and
shall examine them to determine if they are competent to serve
as grand jurors. When a sufficient number of competent
persons have been selected, they shall constitute the
additional grand jury. [Penal Code Section 904.4(b).]
AB 1906
Page 3
5)States that in no event shall more than one additional grand
jury be impaneled pursuant to this section at the same time.
[Penal Code Section 904.4(b).]
6)Provides that whenever an additional grand jury is impaneled
pursuant to this section, it shall inquire into any matters
that are subject to grand jury inquiry and shall have the sole
and exclusive jurisdiction to return indictments, except for
any matters that the regular grand jury is inquiring into at
the time of its impanelment. [Penal Code Section 909.4(d).]
7)States that if an additional grand jury is also authorized by
another section, the county may impanel the additional grand
jury authorized by this section, or by the other section, but
not both. [Penal Code Section 904.4(e).]
8)Requires that in all counties there shall be at least one
grand jury drawn and impaneled in each year. [Penal Code
Section 905.]
9)Provides that any person summoned as a grand juror, who
willfully and without reasonable excuse fails to attend, may
be attached and compelled to attend and the court may also
impose a fine not exceeding $50. States that if the grand
juror was not personally served, the fine shall not be imposed
until an order to show cause has been offered to the grand
juror to be heard. [Penal Code Section 907.]
10)Specifies the procedures to summoning a sufficient number of
grand jurors, and the procedures to be followed if membership
in the grand jury is reduced for any reason by vacancies.
[Penal Code Section 908 and 908.1.]
11)Provides that when the grand jury is impaneled and sworn, it
shall be charged by the court and the court shall give the
grand jurors such information as it deems proper, or as is
required by law, as to their duties, and as to any charges for
public offenses returned to the court or likely to come before
the grand jury. [Penal Code Section 914(a).]
12)States that, to assist the grand jury in the performance of
its statutory duties regarding civil matters, the court, in
consultation with the district attorney, the county counsel,
and at least one former grand juror, shall ensure that a grand
jury that considers or takes action on civil matters receives
AB 1906
Page 4
training that at a minimum addresses, report writing,
interviews, and the scope of the grand jury's responsibility
and statutory authority. [Penal Code Section 914(b).]
Provides that any costs incurred by the court shall be
absorbed by the court or the county from existing resources.
13)Provides that the grand jury may inquire into all public
offenses committed or triable within the county and present
them to the court by indictment. [Penal Code Section 917.]
14)States that the grand jury may inquire into the case of every
person imprisoned in the county jail on a criminal charge and
not indicted; that the grand jury shall inquire into the
condition and management of the public prisons within the
county; and, the grand jury shall inquire into the willful or
corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every
description within the county. [Penal Code Section 919(a)(b)
and (c).]
15)Provides that whenever the AG considers that the public
interest requires, he or she may, with or without the
concurrence of the district attorney, direct the grand jury to
convene for the investigation and consideration of those
matters of a criminal nature that he or she desires to submit
to it. Provides that he or she may take full charge of the
presentation of the matters to the grand jury, issue
subpoenas, prepare indictments, and do all other things
incident thereto, to the same extent as the district attorney
may do. [Penal Code Section 923(a).]
16)States that whenever the AG considers that the public
interest requires, he or she may, with or without the
concurrence of the district attorney, petition the court to
impanel a special grand jury to investigate, consider, or
issue indictments for any activities subject to fine,
imprisonment, or asset forfeiture under a specified section of
the Welfare and Institutions Code. Provides that if the
evidence shows the commission of an offense for which
jurisdiction would be in a county other than the county in
which the grand jury is impaneled, the AG, with or without the
concurrence of the district attorney in the county with
jurisdiction over the offense(s), may petition the court to
impanel a grand jury in that county. [Penal Code Section
923(b).]
AB 1906
Page 5
17)Requires that each grand juror shall keep secret whatever he
or she or any other grand juror has said or in what manner any
grand juror has voted on a matter before them. [Penal Code
Section 924.2.]
18)Provides that the grand jury shall investigate and report on
the operations, accounts, and records of the officers,
departments or functions of the county or of any special
legislative district or other district in the county created
pursuant to state law, as specified. Allows the
investigations to be conducted on a selective basis each year,
but states that the grand jury may not duplicate any
examination of financial records that has been performed for
the board of supervisors, as specified. Allows the grand jury
to enter into a joint contract with the board of supervisors
to employ the services of an expert, as specified and approved
by the court. [Penal Code Section 925 and 926.]
19)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. [Penal Code Section
933(a).]
20)Establishes special procedures for a county with a population
of 20,000 persons or less with respect to the submission of a
final grand jury report by a grand jury with fewer than 12
remaining grand jurors. [Penal Code Section 933.06(a).]
21)States that all expenses of the grand jurors shall be paid by
the county treasurer out of the county's general fund. [Penal
Code Section 931.]
22)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. Provides that for 45 days
after the end of the term, the foreperson and or her is or
designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to
clarify the recommendations of the report. [Penal Code
Section 933(a).]
23)States that as used in connection with the term grand jury,
the "required number means 23 in a county having a population
exceeding four million; 11 in a county having a population of
AB 1906
Page 6
20,000 or less, on approval of the board of supervisors; and
19 in all other counties. [Penal Code Section 888.2.]
24)Defines "grand jury" as a body of the required number of
persons returned from the citizens of the county before a
court of competent jurisdiction and sworn to inquire of public
offenses committed or triable in the county. [Penal Code
Section 888.]
25)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, such as the needs of county
officers or the performing of the duties of the agencies
subject to investigation. [Penal Code Section 888.]
26)Defines "indictment" as an accusation in writing presented by
the grand jury to a competent court, charging a person with a
public offense. [Penal Code Section 889.]
27)States that all felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment or
information, except as otherwise specified. [Penal Code
Section 737.]
28)Provides that when a defendant has been examined and
committed, it is the duty of the district attorney to file,
within 15 days after the commitment, an information against
the defendant which may charge the defendant with either the
offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any
offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the
magistrate to have been committed. Further states that the
Information shall be in the name of the People of the State of
California and subscribed by the district attorney. [Penal
Code Section 739.]
29)States that if it appears from the examination that a public
offense has been committed and there is sufficient cause to
believe the defendant is guilty, the magistrate shall order
that the defendant be held to answer on the charge(s). [Penal
Code Section 872(a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
AB 1906
Page 7
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This bill is
essential to the County of San Bernardino and, more
importantly, essential for the residents and taxpayers who
live there. Oversight and investigation of government goes
hand-in-hand with the basic democratic principals we hold so
dear. Unfortunately, the County of San Bernardino has a great
need for the work of a grand jury, and one grand jury is not
adequate. Alternatives, such as establishing an Ethics
Commission, are much more expensive and infeasible during this
time of strained budgets. AB 1906 provides the best solution
to a difficult problem."
2)Background : According to the background submitted by the
author, "AB 1906 authorizes two additional Grand Juries in San
Bernardino County. Upon the request of the AG, the district
attorney, the presiding judge of the superior court, or the
judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand
jury, may order and direct the empanelment of two additional
grand juries. This bill would allow for a maximum of three
Grand Juries in San Bernardino County."
"California Constitution, Article I, Section 23, provides that,
'One or more grand juries shall be drawn and summoned at least
once a year in each county.' The law governing grand jury
formation, authority, powers, and proceedings, is found in
Part 2, Title 4, of the California Penal Code, Sections 888 -
939.91. Each county is required by law to impanel a body of
19 or 23 members, depending on county population, to serve for
a term of one year, from July 1 to June 30. Grand Jurors
devote an average of three full days a week to grand jury
service. The Grand Jury examines all aspects of county and
special district governments to ensure that the best interest
of county citizens is being served.
"Single-year terms do not afford grand juries, as they exist,
sufficient time to fulfill the vital role assigned to protect
the public interest through critical and scrupulous
governmental oversight. Time dedicated to orientation,
training, and report writing dissipates limited, valuable time
required and necessary for thorough investigations of
increasingly complex government processes and issues. The
heavy caseload in San Bernardino necessitates the ability to
impanel two additional Grand Juries when deemed appropriate.
Increasing the number of Grand Juries will increase the
capability to conduct thorough investigations into civil and
AB 1906
Page 8
criminal proceedings as it has done for Los Angeles County."
3)Committee Amendments : The author has agreed to amend this
bill in Committee to limit the grand jury's authority to
matters of a civil nature. The additional grand jury shall be
authorized to inquire into matters of oversight, conduct
investigations, issue reports and make recommendations.
Additionally, the amendments specify that the additional civil
grand jury shall not have jurisdiction to issue criminal
indictments.
4)Preliminary Hearings vs. Grand Juries : California has two
procedural methods for determining if probable cause exists
prior to filing of felony charges that entitle a defendant to
jury trial. The vast majority of cases proceed by preliminary
hearing. Preliminary hearings afford the accused of a public
hearing before a neutral magistrate and defense counsel.
Grand juries are not adversarial in nature, meaning the
defense attorney nor the accused are present, and they are
held in secret. Additionally, when grand juries are utilized,
witnesses are not subject to cross-examination and evidence
presented is not subject to objection on issues of
admissibility.
a) Preliminary Hearings : The prosecution begins a felony
case either by filing a grand jury indictment in the trial
court or by filing a complaint with a magistrate. [Cal.
Const., art. I, section 14.] If a complaint is filed, a
preliminary hearing must be held before a magistrate to
endure that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant
to answer in the trial court. (Penal Code Section 872.)
When a grand jury indictment is filed, there is no right to
a preliminary hearing. [Bowens v. Superior Court (1991) 1
Cal 4th 36.]
At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution must present
sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate that
probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the defendant committed it. (Penal Code
Sections 872 and 995.) If the prosecution shows probable
cause, the magistrate will hold the defendant to answer to
the charge in the trial court. The prosecution must then
file an information in the court within 15 days. [Penal
Code Sections 739 and 1382(a)(1).]
AB 1906
Page 9
Due to the fact that the vast majority of felony cases settle
before trial, the preliminary hearing may be the sole
proceeding in the case at which evidence is taken. [San
Jose Mercury News v. Municipal Court (1982) 30 Cal 3d 498,
511.] The original purpose of the hearing was to eliminate
at an early stage changes that could be substantiated, thus
saving the accused the personal and financial hardship of
defending groundless charges, and the state the expense of
prosecuting.
Prior to preliminary hearings, defense counsel and
prosecution are entitled to all discovery materials. Both
sides have a clear picture of what the evidence in the case
is and can fairly evaluate the weight of that evidence and
often settle the matter prior to preliminary hearing.
At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution may present live
witnesses, hearsay from qualified law enforcement
witnesses, or a combination of the two. [Penal Code
Section 872(b); Cal. Const., art. I, section 30(b); Whitman
v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal 3d 1063.] The preliminary
hearing transcript, like a civil deposition transcript, can
provide a basis for later impeaching a witness at trial if
the witness testifies inconsistently. [Evidence Code
Section 1235; California v. Green (1970) 399 US 149].
Furthermore, the preliminary hearing transcript, because it
is subject to cross-examination, may be used at trial when
a witness is later unavailable. [Evidence Code Sections
240(a)(4) and 1291; California v. Green, supra.]
At preliminary hearings, the defense may cross-examine
witnesses for purposes of raising affirmative defenses,
negating an element of the offense, or impeaching a
witness. [Jennings v. Superior Court (1967) 66 C2d 867;
Alford v. Superior Court (1972) 29 Cal App 3d 724.]
Cross-examination for the purpose of discovery is not
allowed. [Penal Code Section 866(b).] Similarly, the
presentation of defense evidence is limited to that which,
if believed, is reasonably likely to establish an
affirmative defense; negate an element of a crime charged;
or impeach a prosecution witness or declarant. [Penal Code
Section 866(a).]
At a preliminary hearing, defense counsel may move to
suppress illegally seized evidence introduced at the
AB 1906
Page 10
hearing by making a written notice. A favorable ruling on
a motion to suppress evidence may result in the discharge
of part or all of the complaint. [People v. Belknap (1974)
41 Cal App 3d.]
b) Grand Juries : A grand jury investigates civil and
criminal matters in proceedings closed to the public. A
civil grand jury investigates the operation, management,
and fiscal affairs of the county and the cities in the
county. A criminal grand jury has constitutional authority
to indict a suspect after finding probable clause that he
or she committed an offense.
Prosecutors present a case before a grand jury in the form of
testimony and other evidence and may answer questions that
members of the grand jury have concerning the law. A grand
jury is not supposed to receive evidence that would be
inadmissible over objection at trial. However, even if the
grand jury hears evidence that would be inadmissible at
trial, the indictment is not void if there is sufficient
competent evidence to support the indictment. [Penal Code
Section 939.6(b).] Furthermore, since the defense is not
involved in the proceedings in any manner, they are not
permitted to see the evidence against the accused. Unlike
preliminary hearings, since defense counsel is not present,
no motions to suppress illegal seized evidence are heard or
ever made and that evidence is submitted to the grand jury
with no knowledge on their part that the evidence was
illegally obtained.
Once the presentation of evidence is completed by the
prosecutor, the grand jury deliberates in secret. A
19-member grand jury brings an indictment when 12 or more
jurors conclude that the evidence presented established
probable cause to believe that the accused committed the
offense. A 23-member grand jury requires the concurrence
of at least 14 jurors; an 11-member grand jury requires the
concurrence of at least eight jurors.
Probable cause is the same standard used by a magistrate at a
preliminary hearing: "whether the evidence would lead a
person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and
conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of guilt of
the accused." [Cumminskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 C4th
1018, 1027; Penal Code Section 939.8.]
AB 1906
Page 11
Unlike a preliminary hearing, no notice is given to the
accused prior to the arrest of the now defendant once an
indictment is returned.
5)Grand Juries Were Always Intended to be Used Sparingly in
California : The California Constitution was adopted in 1879.
At that time, the Constitution stated in Article I, Section 8:
"Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment
shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and
commitment by a Magistrate, or by indictment, with or without
such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law.
A Grand Jury shall be drawn and summoned at least one a year
in each county." The term "indictment" refers to a grand jury
indictment and the term "information" refers to a filing
before the court which proceeds by preliminary hearing.
According to a California Attorney General Opinion (1989)
Opinion No. 88-703, "This provision was the subject of
considerable debate in the [constitutional] convention. Those
who wanted to abolish the grand jury and substitute the
information system compromised with those who wanted to retain
the grand jury system by agreeing to a provision which
authorized both systems. The requirement that a grand jury be
drawn once a year in each county was a part of that
compromise." The purpose for keeping the grand jury and
requiring it to be drawn once per year was to put a check on
public officials.
6)Grand Juries Vary from County to County : In California,
counties have implemented widely varying practices with
respect to the use of their grand juries. For example,
according to the County of San Luis Obispo's Web site, "There
is no such thing in California law as a 'civil' grand jury.
California has historically had only 'regular' grand juries
and every county is required by the California Constitution to
have one every year. The regular grand juries have always had
two different functions: criminal and civil.
"One function, the criminal one, is to hear evidence to
determine whether in the grand jury's view it is sufficient to
warrant making an accused stand trial. Typically, the
District Attorney's office decides whom to accuse, on what
charges and what evidence to bring to the attention of the
grand jury. The District Attorney guides and advises the
AB 1906
Page 12
grand jury during its receipt of the evidence. The grand jury
determines whether or not to issue an indictment.
"As discussed below, this indictment function has fallen into
disuse in some, but not all, counties. In addition to
standard criminal indictment activity, potentially included
within the criminal function is the obligation of every
regular grand jury to investigate 'willful or corrupt
misconduct in office of public officers of every description
within the county . . . . ' Whether or not a grand jury's
indictment function has fallen into disuse, this is a
mandatory obligation and obviously may uncover criminal
activity.
"The other function, the civil one, is to investigate local
government agencies and officials to form a view as to whether
they are acting properly. If a grand jury determines they are
not, it has various options open to it. The most frequently
used option is the presentation of a report outlining the
grand jury's findings and recommendations in the matter. Such
reports are public and frequently attract media attention.
They must be responded to in specific ways by the agencies or
elected officials reported upon. Except where an
investigation is mandated, the grand jury in its sole
discretion decides whether and what to investigate when
performing its civil function.
"Depending on the nature and severity of any wrongdoing a grand
jury finds in its investigations, it can, in addition to
releasing a report, request the District Attorney to pursue
the matter criminally, issue its own Accusation to start a
court. [PC901: Standards of Judicial Administration 17(a)
Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 23.3; PC919(c) Generally;
PC925-933.6; PC933.05; and PC919(b).] (See
.)
7)California Rules of Court Regarding Selection of Grand Juries
():
a) "Standard 10.50. Selection of regular grand jury :
i) "Definition: 'Regular grand jury' means a body of
citizens of a county selected by the court to investigate
matters of civil concern in the county, whether or not
AB 1906
Page 13
that body has jurisdiction to return indictments. "
b) Regular grand jury list : "The list of qualified
candidates prepared by the jury commissioner to be
considered for nomination to the regular grand jury should
be obtained by one or more of the following methods (Subd
(b) amended effective January 1, 2007):
i) "Names of members of the public obtained at random
in the same manner as the list of trial jurors. However,
the names obtained for nomination to the regular grand
jury should be kept separate and distinct from the trial
jury list, consistent with Penal Code section 899.
ii)Recommendations for grand jurors that encompass a
cross-section of the county's population base, solicited
from a broad representation of community-based
organizations, civic leaders, and superior court judges,
referees, and commissioners.
iii)"Applications from interested citizens solicited
through the media or a mass mailing.
c) Carryover grand jurors : "The court is encouraged to
consider carryover grand jury selections under Penal Code
section 901(b) to ensure broad-based representation.
d) Nomination of grand jurors : "Judges who nominate
persons for grand jury selection under Penal Code section
903.4 are encouraged to select candidates from the list
returned by the jury commissioner or to otherwise employ a
nomination procedure that will ensure broad-based
representation from the community. (Subd (d) amended
effective January 1, 2007.)"
8)Unless Statute Intent is Modified, Additional Grand Juries are
Limited to Criminal Matters : In 1993, the AG addressed the
functions that may be performed by the second grand jury [76
Op. Atty. Gen. 181 (No. 93-505)] and stated, "The issue
presented for resolution is whether, pursuant to subdivision
(d) of section 904.6, the additional grand jury may inquire
into civil oversight matters, or whether it is restricted to
criminal matters. We conclude that the function of the
additional grand jury is restricted to criminal matters."
AB 1906
Page 14
The AG's opinion continued, "An examination of the legislative
history of section 904.6 discloses the Legislature's intent to
authorize the additional grand jury as a criminal grand jury
only. At the time the statute was amended in 1991 to include
all counties throughout the state, with the specific statutes
governing the six counties being repealed, the committee
reports concerning the proposed legislation refer to the
additional grand jury as performing only a criminal function.
For example, the Senate Committee on Judiciary report for the
committee hearing on July 16, 1991, provided the following
analysis:
"Existing law provides for the establishment of a grand jury in
each county. This body of citizens is 'sworn to inquire of
public offenses committed or triable within the county.'
(Penal Code Section 888.) The grand jury also serves in a
civil 'watchdog' capacity over local government, investigating
the performance of agencies and officials within its venue and
recommending such changes as may be in the public interest.
"The long-standing right of grand juries to issue indictments
was qualified by Hawkins v. Superior Court (22 Cal.3d 572) in
1978 wherein the court opined that 'due process requires that
an indicted defendant is entitled on his timely motion to a
post-indictment preliminary hearing.' Thus, as a preliminary
hearing was required to follow a grand jury proceeding, the
indictment was generally abandoned in favor of a preliminary
hearing on the charges in municipal court, and the function of
the grand jury was limited to governmental oversight and the
occasional criminal action in cases of official malfeasance.
"Last year, the voters adopted Proposition 115, the 'Crime
Victims Justice Initiative,' which overruled Hawkins by
permitting an indictment as the initiation of criminal
proceedings without a requirement of subsequent preliminary
hearing. District attorneys were free to choose indictment,
rather than hearing, as the course of action in pursuing a
case. Some have chosen to exercise this option freely,
therefore imposing a significant criminal workload on grand
juries still responsible for their civil obligations.
"[The bill being considered by the AG in this opinion] would
bifurcate the institution of the grand jury into two forms,
civil and criminal, authorizing counties to combine both
functions in a single grand jury, or to establish independent
AB 1906
Page 15
criminal grand juries upon the decision of the presiding judge
of the superior court or at the request of the district
attorney or the AG. The civil grand jury would be authorized
to inquire into county matters or return accusations of
misconduct by public officials in the manner such juries
functioned prior to Proposition 115 and pursuant to Hawkins;
the criminal grand jury would be authorized to return
indictments for public offenses pursuant to Proposition 115.
Individuals serving in the capacity of criminal grand jurors,
whether on an independent panel or a unified body bringing an
indictment in a criminal case, would be required to meet
standards specified for criminal grand jury service.
"The purpose of this measure is to permit counties to establish
additional grand juries to handle criminal indictments as
authorized by Proposition 115, composed in a manner to
preclude challenge for the 'technicality' of an
unrepresentative panel.
"Recently, this committee heard SB 672 (Davis), which proposed
an additional criminal grand jury for Ventura County alone.
In the analysis, it was suggested that if the authorization
for a criminal grand jury were to be extended to one county it
should be extended universally, considering the anticipated
impact of Proposition 115 on caseload. This bill would seem
responsive to that suggestion.
"Similarly, the report of the Assembly Committee on Public
Safety for the committee hearing on April 9, 1991, stated in
part:
"This bill will leave the selection process and powers of the
civil grand jury intact with the exception of the power to
issue criminal indictments. That function will reside
exclusively with the criminal grand jury.
"Since this bill extends the authority to impanel a criminal
grand jury to all counties, it repeals the existing specific
authority of Los Angeles, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Marin
counties to impanel an additional grand jury.
"The report of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means for the
committee hearing on May 1, 1991, stated: 'This bill would
authorize counties to impanel criminal grand juries with the
power to indict.'
AB 1906
Page 16
"Not only does the legislative history of Penal Code Section
904.6 support the conclusion that the additional grand jury is
to be restricted to a criminal function, so do other
provisions of the statutory scheme. Standing alone, the
language of Penal Code Section 904.6(d) suggests that both
criminal and civil functions may be performed by the
additional grand jury. This is particularly true when it is
seen that the Legislature, whenever restricting the additional
grand jury to either civil matters or criminal matters in the
past, did so in no uncertain terms. (See former Penal Code
Section 904.5, 904.7, 904.8.)
"However, we do not believe that Penal Code Section 904.6 may be
read in isolation, especially in light of its legislative
history. Specifically, Penal Code Section 904.6 must be
construed in conjunction with Penal Code Section 888. Penal
Code Section 888 provides:
"A grand jury is a body of the required number of persons
returned from the citizens of the county before a court of
competent jurisdiction, and sworn to inquire of public
offenses committed or triable within the county.
"Each grand jury or, if more than one has been duly impaneled
pursuant to Penal Code Sections 904.5 to 904.9, inclusive, one
grand jury in each county, shall be charged and sworn to
investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern,
such as the needs of county officers, including the abolition
or creation of offices for, the purchase, lease, or sale of
equipment for, or changes in the method or system of,
performing the duties of the agencies subject to investigation
pursuant to Section 914.1.
"Additionally, Penal Code Section 914.1 provides, 'When a grand
jury is impaneled, for purposes which include the
investigation of, or inquiry into, county matters of civil
concern, the judge of the superior court of the county, in
addition to other matters requiring action, shall call its
attention to the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 23000) of Division 1 of Title 3, and Sections 24054
and 26525 of the Government Code, and instruct it to ascertain
by a careful and diligent investigation whether such
provisions have been complied with, and to note the result of
such investigation in its report. At such time the judge
AB 1906
Page 17
shall also inform and charge the grand jury especially as to
its powers, duties, and responsibilities under Article 1
(commencing with Section 888) of Chapter 2, and Article 2
(commencing with Section 925), Article 3 (commencing with
Section 934) of this chapter, Article 3 (commencing with
Section 3060) of Chapter 7 of Division 4 of Title 1 of the
Government Code, and Section 17006 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.'
"An examination of the provisions which must be called to the
grand jury's attention pursuant to section 914.1 with respect
to 'county matters of civil concern' include all matters of
civil oversight within the grand jury's jurisdiction, whether
there is a single grand jury in the county, or whether these
are two grand juries.
"Accordingly, the provisions of sections 888, 904.6, and 914.1,
when construed together, lead to the inevitable conclusion
that the grand jury authorized by section 904.6 is restricted
to criminal matters and may not perform civil oversight
functions. Section 888 specifically refers to Section 904.6
and contemplates that when there are two grand juries in a
county empanelled under the provisions of the latter statute,
only one grand jury may be charged and sworn to inquire into
civil matters. This of necessity would exclude the additional
grand jury impaneled pursuant to Section 904.6 since that
grand jury has 'sole and exclusive jurisdiction to return
indictments. If the additional grand jury of section 904.6
was the one charged with civil oversight functions as well,
that would leave the county with a regular grand jury having
no civil oversight functions and no power to return
indictments. We may not interpret section 904.6 to produce
such an absurd result.
"Accordingly, we believe that the additional grand jury
authorized by section 904.6 is to be a criminal grand jury and
the other grand jury within the county is to be the civil
grand jury. This conclusion is supported by the statute's
legislative history, the provisions of sections 888 and 914.1,
and the language of section 904.6(e) in which the jurors are
referred to as 'criminal grand jurors' and the grand jury is
referred to as the 'additional criminal grand jury.'
"In summary, we conclude that the additional grand jury
authorized by section 904.6 is restricted to criminal matters
AB 1906
Page 18
only and may not perform civil oversight functions."
Applying the above AG's opinion to this bill, it appears that if
an additional grand jury is authorized for San Diego County,
that additional grand jury would be limited to performing
criminal functions.
9)Judicial Council Committee Study on Diversity in Grand Juries :
A Judicial Council Committee has studied the issues of racial
and ethnic diversity in the grand juries, and concluded that,
"The committee . . . believes sufficient research has been
conducted to support a rule aimed at gathering certain
demographic information about grand jurors. At least three
in-depth studies of the civil grand juror system in California
have been conducted during the last decade. (Executive
Summary, Final Report of the Judicial Council Advisory
Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts;
.)
"The studies concluded that California grand juries are not
representative of the populations they serve. Further, the
committee's investigation of this issue was not in response to
external pressure from any organization or group, but from a
council-adopted recommendation from the 1992 Advisory
Committee on Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. The
committee's examination of representative civil grand juries
was also reflected in its 2002-2003 work plan. Focus groups
supported the project at that time. During its final review
of this proposal, there were offered two recommendations.
First, it recommended clarification of the terms 'eligible'
and 'qualified,' as used in subdivisions (a)(3), (b)(2), and
in the advisory committee comment, to eliminate any confusion
those terms might cause. The committee agreed and incorporated
those changes. The committee clarified the terms 'eligible to
serve' and 'qualified' by adding a definition of 'eligible to
serve' that references the requirements for regular grand jury
service set forth in Penal Code section 893. The added
definition also clarifies that courts are to collect the data
after prospective jurors indicate their interest in regular
grand jury service and are determined by the court to meet the
eligibility requirements.
"Second, it was recommended that the committee consider whether
'demographic' as used in the title is too broad a term, in
AB 1906
Page 19
view of the specific data to be collected. It also
recommended that the committee consider adding two demographic
categories ? specifically, 'range of household income' and
'highest level of educational attainment.' It was suggested
that collecting this data, as well as the data currently
outlined in the proposed rule, would assist the courts in
obtaining a more complete view of the demographic composition
of the prospective and seated jurors, to compare with county
demographics.
"After hearing the committee's concerns, it was recommended that
the committee instead clarify that the rule is limited to the
collection of certain demographic data; that the advisory
committee report back with an analysis of the data collected
within one to two years after the rule is implemented; and
that the committee submit its recommendations regarding
additional demographic categories at that time. The committee
agreed, and it inserted 'certain' before 'demographic' in the
title of the rule to clarify that limited data will be
collected, and the committee will consider adding other
demographic categories to the rule and report back with its
recommendations and analysis within two years of
implementation.
"In an Advisory Committee comment, it was stated that this rule
is intended to facilitate the courts' continued efforts to
achieve the goals stated . . . in the Standards of Judicial
Administration, which encourage courts to employ various
methods of soliciting prospective candidates to serve on
regular grand juries that reflect a representative
cross-section of the community they serve.
"Those methods include obtaining recommendations for grand
jurors who encompass a cross-section of the county's
population base, solicited from a broad representation of
community-based organizations, civic leaders, and superior
court judges, referees, and commissioners subdivision (b)(2));
having the court consider carry-over grand jury selections
under Penal Code section 901(b) to ensure broad-based
representation (subd. 6 (c)); and encouraging judges who
nominate persons for grand jury service under Penal Code
section 903.4 to select candidates from the list returned by
the jury commissioner or otherwise employing a nomination
procedure to ensure broad-based representation from the
community.
AB 1906
Page 20
"This rule is also intended to assist the courts in establishing
a formal mechanism whereby they can monitor the extent to
which they achieve the goal of seating representative regular
grand juries through a process comparable to that stated in
Penal Code section 904.6(e), which requires that persons
selected for the "criminal grand jury shall be selected at
random from a source or sources reasonably representative of a
cross section of the population which is eligible for jury
service in the county."
10)Secrecy of the Grand Jury : According to "The Grand Jury, A
Brief Historical Overview" by Dr. Marianne Jameson, California
Grand Jurors' Association, 2004, "Secrecy has long been a
hallmark of grand juries. In modem times, the California
Supreme Court has summarized the reasons for grand jury
secrecy as follows: (1) to prevent the escape of those whose
indictment may be contemplated; (2) to ensure the utmost
freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations and to prevent
persons subject to indictment or their friends from
importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of
perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before
the grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted
by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by
persons who have information with respect to the commission of
crime; (5) to protect the innocent accused who is exonerated
from disclosure of the fact that he has been under
investigation and from the expense of standing trial where
there was probably no guilt."
In Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2006) 39 Cal. 4th
1272, 1285, the California Supreme Court considered a
provision prohibiting disclosure of information that would
identify grand jury witnesses, and held that it "reaffirms the
general legislative concern to safeguard grand jury secrecy."
In discussing the legislative history of safeguards to grand
jury secrecy, the Court stated that it confirmed the
Legislature's intent to "prohibit any information identifying
the individuals involved from being released, in an effort to
protect the personal rights of both citizens and officers."
[Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Republican Analysis, AB
2222 (1989-90 Legislative Session) Sept. 2, 1989, p. 2; see
also Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, Analysis of AB 2222
(1989-90 Legislative session) as amended May 17, 1989
(exception allows release of summary data "as long as the
AB 1906
Page 21
information does not identify the officers involved").] Given
the statutory language and the legislative history, the court
of appeal erred in ordering disclosure of the name of the
deputy involved in this case.
The exclusionary rule is inapplicable in grand jury proceedings,
with the result that a witness called before a grand jury may
be questioned on the basis of knowledge obtained through the
use of illegally-seized evidence. Thus, allowing the use of
evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, courts
nonetheless restated the principle that, while free of many
rules of evidence that bind trial courts, grand juries are not
unrestrained by constitutional consideration. [Indictment by
Grand Jury; .]
11)The Operation of the Grand Jury : According to "Indictment by
Grand Jury" (),
"The prescribed constitutional function of grand juries in
federal courts is to return criminal indictments, but the
juries serve a considerably broader series of purposes as
well. Principal among these is the investigative function,
which is served through the fact that grand juries may summon
witnesses by process and compel testimony and the production
of evidence generally. Operating in secret, under the
direction but not control of a prosecutor, not bound by many
evidentiary and constitutional restrictions, such juries may
examine witnesses in the absence of their counsel and without
informing them of the object of the investigation or the place
of the witnesses in it.
"A witness called before a grand jury is not entitled to be
informed that he may be indicted for the offense under inquiry
and the commission of per jury by a witness before the grand
jury is punishable, irrespective of the nature of the warning
given him when he appears and regardless of the fact that he
may already be a putative defendant when he is called." (Id.)
According to an article in Wikipedia, "Grand juries are today
virtually unknown outside the United States. The United
Kingdom abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a
committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In
Australia, although the State of Victoria maintains provisions
for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354
AB 1906
Page 22
Indictments, it has been used on rare occasions by individuals
to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed
for trial on indictable offences. New Zealand abolished the
grand jury in 1961. Canada abolished it in the 1970s.
"Today approximately half of the states in the U.S. employ
[grand juries], and only twenty-two require their use, to
varying extents. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand
juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a
judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes
a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.
"A grand jury is part of the system of checks and balances,
preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare
word. The grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary
citizens, must first decide whether there exists reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been
committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify
before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's
proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel
are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The
grand jury's decision is either a 'true bill' (meaning that
there is a case to answer) or 'no true bill'. Jurors
typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit
jury, and participate for a specific time period.
"Some argue that the grand jury is unjust as the defendant is
not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to
call witnesses. Intended to serve as a check on prosecutors,
the opportunity it presents them to compel testimony can in
fact prove useful in building up the case they will present at
the final trial.
"In practice, a grand jury rarely acts in a manner contrary to
the wishes of the prosecutor. Judge Sol Wachtler, the
disbarred former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as
saying that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to
'indict a ham sandwich.' As such, many jurisdictions in the
United States have replaced the formality of a grand jury with
procedure in which the prosecutor can issue charges by filing
an information (also known as an accusation) which is followed
by a preliminary hearing before a judge at which both the
defendant and his or her counsel are present. New York has
amended procedures governing the formation of grand juries
such that grand jurors are no longer required to have previous
AB 1906
Page 23
jury experience.
"In some rare instances, the grand jury does break with the
prosecutor. It can even exclude the prosecutor from its
meetings and subpoena witnesses and issue indictments on its
own. This is called a 'runaway grand jury.' Runaway grand
juries sometimes happen in government corruption or organized
crime cases, if the grand jury comes to believe that the
prosecutor himself has been improperly influenced. Such cases
were common in the 19th century, but have become infrequent
since the 1930s.
"In all U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, the
defendant has the right under the Fifth Amendment not to give
self-incriminating testimony. However, the prosecutor can
call the defendant to testify and require the defendant to
assert the right on a question-by-question basis, which is
prohibited in jury trials unless the defendant has voluntarily
testified on his own behalf. Other evidentiary rules
applicable to trials (such as the hearsay rule) are generally
not applicable to grand jury proceedings."
(.) (Citations omitted.)
12)Nature and Function of the Preliminary Examination : In
"Grand Jury Indictment Versus Prosecution by Information - An
Equal Protection-Due Process Issue", by Richard Alexander and
Sheldon Portman
(), the
authors stated, "The due process clauses of both the
Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution require
that the state adopt a procedure which will insure that no
person is required to stand trial at the whim or caprice of
the prosecuting attorney. The form is not mandated to be
either a grand jury or a preliminary examination but rather a
procedure which effectively secures to the accused the
substance of due process: an independent judicial
determination of the reasonableness of the charge.
"Two methods for initiating a felony prosecution are authorize
under the California Constitution in the following language:
"Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment
shall be prosecuted by indictment without such examination and
commitment, as may be prescribed by law.
AB 1906
Page 24
"The California Penal Code authorizes prosecution by either
information or indictment with the overwhelming majority of
all criminal prosecutions being initiated by information
pursuant to Penal Code Section 858. Under this procedure, an
accused is entitled to a preliminary examination before a
magistrate and is afforded the right to representation by
counsel and the right to present witnesses in his own behalf.
"The California Supreme Court has described these provisions
being declaratory of fundamental procedural rights and has
stressed the earlier view of the United States Supreme Court
that the preliminary examination process 'carefully considers
and guards the substantial interest of the prisoner' and thus
constitutes due process of law.
"In [one cited case] the purpose of the preliminary examination
process was described in the following language: 'The
preliminary examination is not merely a pre-trial hearing.
The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to weed out
groundless or unsupported charges of grave offenses, and to
relieve the accused of the degradation and the expense of a
criminal trial. Many an unjustifiable prosecution is stopped
at that point, where the lack of probable cause is clearly
disclosed.
" 'In [another case] this constitutional and statutory purpose
was held to require that the defendant "be permitted, if he
chooses, to elicit testimony or introduce evidence tending to
overcome the prosecution's case or establish an affirmative
defense." '
"The critical nature of the preliminary hearing and its
constitutional concomitant assistance of counsel, during that
stage were established recently in Coleman v. Alabama [399
U.S. 1 (1970.) ] Although Alabama law forbade the use at trial
of anything that occurred at a preliminary hearing held
without counsel, nevertheless, the Court ruled:
"[I]t does not follow that the Alabama preliminary hearing is
not a 'critical stage' of the State's criminal process. The
determination whether the hearing is a 'critical stage'
requiring the provision of counsel depends, as noted, upon an
analysis 'whether potential substantial prejudice to
defendant's rights inheres in the . . . confrontation and the
AB 1906
Page 25
ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice.' [United
States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 227 (1967).] Plainly, the
guiding hand of counsel at the preliminary hearing is
essential to protect the indigent accused against an erroneous
or improper prosecution.
a) "First, the lawyer's skilled examination and
cross-examination of witnesses expose fatal weaknesses in
the State's case that may lead the magistrate to refuse to
bind the accused over.
b) "Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of
witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital
impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the
State's witnesses at the trial.
c) "Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover
the case the State has against his client and make possible
the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at
the trial.
d) "Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the
preliminary hearing in making effective arguments for the
accused on such matters as the necessity for an early
psychiatric examination or bail. The inability of the
indigent accused on his own to realize these advantages of
a lawyer's assistance compels the conclusion that the
Alabama preliminary hearing is a 'critical stage' of the
State's criminal process at which the accused is 'as much
entitled to such aid [of counsel] . . . as at the trial
itself.' " [Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 57.]
"Of equal, if not greater, import to our citizens is the fact
that a preliminary examination provides them protection
from the ignominy and expense of going to trial unless
there has been an evidentiary hearing and a holding that
sufficient evidence exists to justify trial." (Citations
omitted.)
13)Concurrence of Grand Jurors for Indictment : An indictment
cannot be found without the concurrence of at least 14 grand
jurors in a county in which the number of grand jurors is 23;
the concurrence of at least eight grand jurors in a county in
which the number of grand jurors in 11, and at least 12 grand
jurors in all other counties. [Penal Code Section 940.]
AB 1906
Page 26
14)Should the Grand Jury System Be Studied in California ? Given
the wide variances among counties as to the use of the
criminal grand jury, should the continuing viability of a
criminal grand jury system be studied by an agency equipped to
do so, such as the Law Revision Commission or the Little
Hoover Commission? According to the American Bar Association,
only about one-half of the states currently make use of
criminal grand juries. This bill proposes that two counties
establish additional criminal grand juries within their
jurisdictions. At the same time, many other counties in
California do not make use of the criminal grand jury; many
are pointedly critical of it on their Internet Web sites.
Given the wide divergence of opinion as to the
constitutionality and fundamental fairness of the criminal
grand jury system, is this an appropriate time to expand its
use? Should consideration be given to amending this bill to
include a sunset date, with a report required from each county
as to the efficacy of the extra grand jury?
According to the American Bar Association, "The Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for
federal criminal charges. Only about half the states now use
grand juries." The American Bar Association further states,
"The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the
instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to
use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation
mitigate against it.
"The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the
prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call.
The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity.
The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he
or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally
permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness's
testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has
enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand
jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any
additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge
what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.
"The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand
jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any
instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely
given." (.)
AB 1906
Page 27
15)Argument in Support : According to the County of San
Bernardino , "As you are aware, each county in California is
constitutionally required to have at lease one grand jury
impaneled at all times. The major functions of county grand
juries are divided into criminal indictments and civil
investigations. The grand jury plays an integral role in
county government, providing autonomous oversight over
governmental operations.
"In San Bernardino County, the same panel executes both criminal
and civil functions. The grand jury is charged and sworn to
investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern,
such as the needs of county officers, including the abolition
or creation of offices, purchases, leases, or changes in the
method of system of performing the duties of the agencies
subject to the investigation, focusing on governmental
oversight, ensuring the county is governed honestly and
efficiently, and county monies are appropriated properly. In
San Bernardino County the civil investigation portion consumes
the majority of juror time.
"The grand jury is charged with the distinguished and arduous
role of 'watchdog' of public office, with the potential to
uncover substantive opportunities for improvements in public
operations each year. Grand jury responsibilities associated
with overseeing San Bernardino county, the largest
geographical county, with 18,000 employees and two million
residents, is difficult under current conditions. Foremen of
recent grand juries have described their involvedness as
'impossible to do a thorough investigation of this massive
operation,' 'laborious and exhaustive' and requiring time
spent during 'evenings and off-days.'
"AB 1906 would allow for the impanelment of up to two additional
grand juries, augmenting necessary and independent
governmental oversight over county operations, allowing for
more thorough investigations, exposing opportunities for the
betterment of public service and alleviating the burden of
grand jury service. For these reasons, the San Bernardino
County Board of Supervisors is pleased to sponsor AB 1906."
16)Argument in Opposition: According to the California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) , [c]riminal grand juries
are intended to be used sparingly and only when highly
AB 1906
Page 28
sensitive information is at issue since these proceedings are
closed to the public and the defendant. For these reasons
CACJ is opposed to this measure.
"As you know, California's felony process requires a prosecutor
to present her evidence and witnesses before a judge during a
preliminary hearing. This process is open to the public. The
defendant is permitted to a limited cross-examination of the
witness. This to enhances the ability of the judge to
determine whether the case should proceed or be dismissed for
lack of evidence.
"By contrast, the public is excluded from the grand jury
proceedings, eliminating a critical check on our judicial
process. Additionally, defendants are denied an opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses who testify before a grand jury.
Cross-examination may produce exculpatory evidence to
exonerate wrongfully accused individuals.
"CACJ is also concerned that grand jury proceedings lack
sufficient checks on illegally-obtained evidence. For
example, furing a preliminary hearing an accused has the
opportunity to ask the judge to determine whether the search
of someone's home violates the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. A grand jury
proceeding denies the accused the ability to make this
inquiry.
"CACJ is concerned grand juries that are cloaked in secrecy are
no longer restricted to the unusual case, but are instead
emerging as a strategy to avoid the heightened scrutiny of a
preliminary hearing. In December 2009 the Ventura County Star
reported the local district attorney's office exponentially
increased its grand jury request for routine criminal cases.
The Ventura County DA's office expects to seek nearly 500 jury
indictments in this coming year. By contrast, the Los Angeles
County DA uses the criminal grand jury in only 15 cases a
year.
"AB 1906 would allow San Bernardino's District Attorney's Office
to circumvent the preliminary hearing in hundreds of cases
that would otherwise deserve public scrutiny and should permit
a defendant to question his accusers.
"Any criminal proceeding which does not afford a defendant
AB 1906
Page 29
essential constitutional rights should be used sparingly.
Unfortunately your measure allows the San Bernardino District
Attorney to call upon the criminal grand jury without
restriction; its use is not reserved for cases involving
public sensitivity which necessitates a secret proceeding and
the waiver of a defendant's rights."
17)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1854 (Garrick), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
authorized the presiding judge of the San Diego County
Superior Court, or the judge appointed by the presiding
judge to supervise the grand jury, to impanel one
additional grand jury in San Diego County. AB 1854 failed
passage in Senate Public Safety Committee.
b) SB 796 (Runner), Chapter 82, Statutes of 2007,
authorized the presiding judge of the Superior Court of the
County of Los Angeles, or the judge appointed by the
presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, to impanel an
additional grand jury in that county, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County of San Bernardino
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744