Policy & Practice December 2017

� “Oh, is that still on the screen?” Again, some, but not all, prosecutors would leave upsetting pictures on a video or overhead screen for a few extra seconds while they searched their papers, making sure we were too upset to let anyone get away with the crime at hand. � “This is technically assault and kidnapping with a deadly weapon.” The written laws and standards for things like assault and kidnapping can be “jacked up” by prosecutors, I think to add counts to indictments without them really being appropriate. We had a case where the accused allegedly grabbed and held a victim who was falling, and were told that this justified a kidnapping count. � “Danny.” This quote looks different than the others, right? For a con- trasting example, one prosecutor actually explained both sides of the argument for indicting the accused before we voted on the case. He even shared with us what he thought the chances of conviction were in a petit jury trial. He went back over the facts of the case and answered our questions until we had none left. We found the police officers we met to be reasonable, respectful, and diverse in their backgrounds (age, race, gender). The detectives we encountered were also generally credible. What was troubling about law enforcement officers involved in our cases was how different their practices seemed to be in high-crime neighborhoods. Their approach appeared to be far less relational and much more task oriented than I’ve experienced when calling an officer or other emergency response profes- sionals myself. I now understand that the “structural” elements of what happens in reality—how work, policies, and procedures operate and result in outcomes and impacts that may be expedient, and may seem normal, but are unfair and inequitable. V. What We Can Do This list of suggestions is by no means conclusive, and my hope is that

Grand juries technically may call additional witnesses or request additional evidence, yet we never once did so. Why? Because pros- ecutors were highly skilled in redirecting our requests into expla- nations and reinforcement that we were not a petit jury, and only needed enough evidence to deter- mine probable cause. � “You have 15 minutes, and today is my deadline.” On occasion prosecutors explained to us that a 100-day allowable period to secure an indictment on a case was expiring that very day or the next. Given our dockets and scheduled breaks and end times each day, we were regularly in a situation where we had to rush through deliberations and votes to support that process. � “So now that you’ve agreed to put your video interview on the record…” Some prosecutors would ask victims to go back over their recorded testimony, to the point where they became upset in front of us. They would do this gently and supportively in tone, but we often asked each other afterward, “Why was that necessary when we could just read or watch what’s on the record?”

among the professionals we encoun- tered to meet their own immediate and case-driven objectives, which were to secure a “yes” vote for the requested charges and an official indictment as efficiently as possible. At one point a prosecutor who was getting to know us well said, “Thank God for Grand Juries.” Prosecutors know that a thoughtful grand jury will ask questions that help them think through their cases and address flaws in their arguments and evidence. But more important, grand jury votes— almost always affirmative—enable the targeted multicount indictments to go on record and put the plea bargaining process in motion. Here are some of the specific examples of the things prosecutors say that reinforce my perspective: � “I’ve clearly established probable cause—any questions before you vote?” This was a commonly used device that prosecutors used on a lay jury to basically intimidate them to give a “yes” vote. Prosecutors would almost invariably ask us this question, staring at us with keen readiness to argue down any thoughts of a “no” vote, before we were left to the deliberation and voting tasks. � “You’ve seen enough evidence to determine probable cause.”

See Grand Jury on page 36

13

December 2017   Policy&Practice