Release of Grand Jury Data Barred by Justices

Rejecting claims of the public’s “right to know,” the state Supreme Court on Monday barred county grand juries from disclosing testimony and other evidence they acquire during secret investigations of governmental activities.

The court, in a 6-1 decision, said that the public release of “raw evidentiary materials” along with a grand jury report of findings and recommendations would violate centuries-old guarantees of confidentiality in the system.

The justices upheld an order by a Fresno County Superior Court judge prohibiting the release of transcripts of testimony, prosecutors’ reports and other data obtained by a grand jury investigating alleged irregularities in the award of a $1.37-million computer service contract.

Right to Secrecy

The court said that, until the Legislature authorizes such disclosure, witnesses in governmental watchdog investigations are entitled to the same protection of secrecy they would receive when the grand jury is considering criminal indictments.

“Compared with indictment proceedings, the efficacy and credibility of watchdog investigations no less require that witnesses testify without fear of reproach by their peers or their superiors,” Justice Marcus M. Kaufman wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk accused the majority of approving “censorship” under the mistaken belief that grand jury investigations were essentially a function of the judiciary. However well-intentioned the Fresno judge was in barring release of the data, he still was improperly interfering with the grand jury’s duty to file a full report to the public, Mosk said.

“As we should have learned from the lessons of history, the road to censorship is often paved with good intentions,” he said.

Target of Criticism

The decision drew criticism from Val W. Saldana of Fresno, an attorney representing the McClatchy Newspapers and other news organizations that had challenged the judge’s order in the case before the court.

“It obviously narrows what a grand jury can do and could have a somewhat chilling effect on what it can disclose,” Saldana said. “It will narrow the public’s expectations of what information it can receive.”

Peter E. Tracy, a Bishop attorney representing the California Grand Jurors Assn. and other groups backing McClatchy, also criticized the decision.

“A judge shouldn’t be able to censor the right of a grand jury to free speech,” Tracy said. “Who better knows what should be told the public in this situation?”

But the decision won praise from Michael G. Woods, a Fresno attorney who defended the judge’s order before the justices.

Risking Intimidation

“People can feel more confident now in bringing things to the attention of grand juries, knowing they won’t have to risk intimidation or intrusions on their privacy,” Woods said. “This case had nothing to do with censorship--that’s just an appeal to emotionalism.”

The ruling came in a test of the authority of grand juries, whose proceedings have been generally closed to the public since the institution was first established in this country in the 17th Century.

In California, grand juries may weigh criminal charges to see if indictments are warranted, consider allegations of misconduct against public officials to see if their removal from office should be sought, and investigate and report on local governmental activities--the role they now play most often.

In the case before the court, the Fresno grand jury in 1983 launched a six-month inquiry into the contract award but returned no indictments. It filed a report summarizing its findings and criticizing county officials for their conduct in making the award and, in addition, sought to release about 600 pages of supporting material--including testimony, district attorney’s reports and other documents.

Judge’s Reasoning

Superior Court Judge Robert Z. Mardikian approved the release of the report but, in response to requests by an executive of the company that won the contract and a county official, barred disclosure of the supporting material, finding it would violate the historic confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

But McClatchy and the other news organizations, backed by a group of grand juror associations, challenged Mardikian’s ruling, saying he had exceeded his authority and violated the public’s inherent right to know about operations of government.

A state Court of Appeal in Fresno agreed, overturning the order and finding that, in the absence of a specific statutory prohibition to disclosure, the material should be released.

In their ruling Monday, the justices traced the development of the grand jury system and concluded that it was “fundamentally a judicial entity,” subject to restraints by a judge.

Secrecy was “deeply rooted” in the system, Kaufman wrote, protecting the reputations of the innocent and encouraging candid testimony from witnesses who otherwise might be intimidated by political or employment considerations.