BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 622 (Dickinson)
Hearing Date: 08/15/2011 Amended: 07/12/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Judiciary 3-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 622 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
receive input on the report at least 21 days prior to the
issuance of its final report, unless the meeting would be
detrimental to the investigation, as specified. This bill would
also, until January 1, 2017, authorize a witness called to
testify before a civil grand jury to have counsel present on his
or her behalf while giving sworn testimony, subject to specified
requirements.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Mandated agency meetings Unknown; state-reimbursable
costs General
with civil grand jury potentially in excess of $50
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Existing law provides that one or more grand juries shall be
drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county. Under
current law, each grand jury is required 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 it to be in compliance with Grand Jury Proceedings.
This bill seeks to enhance accountability and accuracy of grand
jury reports by requiring that a civil grand jury, at least 21
AB 622 (Dickinson)
Page 1
days prior to the issuance of its final report, meet with the
chief executive or department head of an agency under
investigation to discuss the nature of the investigation and
receive input, unless the presiding or supervising judge, in his
or her own determination or upon request of the foreperson of
the grand jury, determines that the meeting would be detrimental
to the investigation.
The time necessary for a county, city, school, or community
college district, or special district agency executive to attend
the required meeting(s) with the civil grand jury would result
in state-reimbursable costs of an unknown amount and would vary
based on the complexity of the investigation and the nature of
the draft report to be commented upon. Assuming a minimum of
$1,000 per executive in each county for salary and travel costs
would result in annual statewide reimbursable costs of $58,000.
This bill would also, until January 1, 2017, authorize a witness
called to testify before a civil grand jury to have counsel
present on his or her behalf while giving sworn testimony,
subject to specified requirements. A violation of this section
by counsel shall be a violation of the Rules of Professional
conduct and may be reported to the State Bar of California.
Costs associated with additional counsel provided to witnesses
at their request are unknown but could be substantial if the
witnesses interviewed by a grand jury are largely county and
other local government employees that would require county and
agency counsel resources. As the bill is permissive in the right
to counsel but does not require counsel, any costs to local
agencies would be non-reimbursable.
Prior Legislation. AB 527 (Baugh) 2000 had similar provisions
regarding permission to have counsel present during testimony to
a grand jury. This measure was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
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 warrant
thorough and thoughtful consideration and debate within the
legal community and among legal scholars. For example, there is
AB 622 (Dickinson)
Page 2
no indication that the Law Revision Commission was asked to
perform a study to determine the efficacy of this legislation.
The Law Revision Commission is equipped to study and make
recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on issues as
important as this one.
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.