Grand Jury Duty in Brooklyn
A little bit of my experience with grand jury duty in Brooklyn. Exact process and laws most likely differ from area to area. A week and a half into service, and already I’m exhausted. From a juror’s perspective, it’s clear to me that the system is broken with regards to how it treats jurors.
It started when I recieved a jury questionnaire in mid-2019, followed soon thereafter by a Grand Jury summons in downtown Brooklyn. Emily and I already had a vacation to Norway planned for late November, so I postponed until January 24, 2020. The first postponement simply required going to a website and choosing a time in the next six months when I was able to show up. The holidays passed, and as January rolled around I recieved another letter, similar to the first, with the new date I was required to report.
I resigned myself to my fate, with the idea that were I to be chosen, at least there would be ample opportunity to explore an area I hadn’t spent a ton of time in. I had projects to work on, books to read, I’d figure something out. Oh, and by the way, if I didn’t show up, I could be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment, as well as still be required to do my civic duty. Nice.
Drafting
8:30 AM on Friday, January 24th. Everyone shows up, waits in line, and finally is ferried through bag scanners and metal detectors. We go up to the second floor and wait in a large courtroom. The actual process doesn’t actually start until 10:00, because so many people are ridiculously late. Eventually everyone is subjected to a terrible short video about what a Grand Jury is and its importance. The administrator running the show filters out students, those who have caretaker obligations, etc. As far as I could tell, no-one was wholly exempted. Grand Jury duty is merely postponed, particularly for students and those on holiday. Three Jury wardens then enter the room and draw juries from the remaining pool: two 2-week juries, and one 4-week jury. Inevitably, I am drawn for the four week tour. We’re given our badges and sent home, with instructions to show up on the 16th floor at 9:30 AM the following Monday.
As part of the process, the wardens selected Jurors #1, #2, and #3 in each jury, who serve as the foreperson, assistant foreperson and secretary. Their votes carry the same weight as any other member, but with various additional administrative responsibilities: signing decisions, swearing in witnesses, and noting when jurors are missing (being absent for any portion of a case, regardless how brief, prevents that person from voting).
The First Real Day
On Monday morning the members of all three juries were shuttled into a single room, for a follow-up orientation as a group. We were read a longer prepared overview of a Grand Jury’s function and operation, mostly mimicking the information in the Grand Juror’s handbooks.
Organization & Procedure
A Grand Jury decides whether or not charges should be brought in a case. There are a number of significant differences from a Petit Jury:
- There is no judge in the courtroom. The prosecutor serves as the legal aid to the jury and informs them on relevant portions of the law.
- Grand Juries consist of 23 members. A quorum of 16 must be present to take any action.
- Guilt or innocence isn’t decided, only whether to indict or dismiss the charges.
- Actions don’t require unanimity, instead 12 or more jurors who have heard all of the evidence.
- Rather than using the requirement that there be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, a grand jury uses the requirements that there be legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause when determining whether to indict.
- The defendant(s) are not required to be present in court, have no legal requirement to appear or defend themselves, and may not even know the proceedings are going on.
Good Idea, Outdated Implementation
The handbook mentions that the use of “grand juries goes back approximately 800 years” and that they “were used in England.” What it doesn’t mention is that England no longer uses them. In fact, the United States (and Liberia?) are the only countries that still use grand juries.
The grand jury does serve a useful purpose: preventing unwarranted or abusive charges from soiling a defendant’s reputation and validating evidence presented. The intention seems good, but in practice it is a huge burden on those called to participate. Preliminary hearings accomplish this same purpose without imprisoning jurors for weeks on end.
My issues with the system I experienced are:
- Jurors, if not paid by their job, are paid $40 a day by the state. Not only is this insulting, it disproportionately penalizes folks who work low-wage hourly jobs, especially in an expensive city like NYC. Their job is required to pay them, but only for the first three days of jury duty. For a four-week panel, this isn’t much. Additionally, this income is taxable. Trial juries also face the same issue $40 in New York, with a generous $6 that may be authorized by the court in cases lasting longer than 30 days, and because the verdict is required to be unanimous they can go on even longer.
- Grand juries overwhelmingly indict. In my experience, it’s almost a default to raise your hand when voting on a charge. This is a minor issue in my experience; the prosecutors seemed to have already collected very thorough cases. As a sanity / homework check, I think the function of a grand jury is being met. On the flip side,
- Grand juries tend to not indict police officers. Probably the most high profile instance of this is Eric Garner, where a grand jury decided not to indict the officer. In the proceeding years, it was recommended he be terminated and eventually he was fired in 2019, but that wasn’t until five years later. Because prosecutors work closely with police, and because they are the sole source of evidence and legal guidance for a grand jury to indict or dismiss charges, a massive conflict of interest becomes apparent.
- The information provided is surprisingly scant. As jurors, you’re not provided a copy of the law; instead the prosecutor simply reads the relevant portion when charging a defendant with a crime. Written copies of the relevant sections of the law the prosecutor is charging on ought to be provided to jurors for reference.
- The information that is provided is stated again and again. Every Monday a 10-15 minute refresher on what a grand jury’s purpose is is read. The assistant district attorneys re-read the same definitions over and over. Reminders of how voting is accomplished are repeated. Indictment requirements and standards of evidence are repeated. The voting process and required votes are repeated. I understand the need for process, but certain reminders submitted to the jurors repeatedly only serves to dampen listening skills.
- Significant amounts of time are spent waiting. Because prosecutors must present cases with evidence from eyewitnesses much of the time, presentations revolve around those schedules, so jurors are treated as second-class citizens and left sitting around. No communication is done regarding schedule or timing of cases, particularly around morning start times. I estimate more than 40% of my time spent in the jury room is spent waiting.
Additional Reading
Some of these articles relate to other states’ and federal grand juries, but are interesting nonetheless.