Grand Jury System and Random Selection

Re Your editorial “Slow Road to Justice” (July 21):

You are correct in your doubts about preliminary hearings fulfilling their purpose.

The same vote that removed justices from the Byrd court will, no doubt, vote affirmative to reinstate pre-Hawkins Decision grand jury hearings for defendants. The initiative will be on the ballot in the near future with other “victims’ rights” changes and modifications to existing law.

When that change occurs, a careful examination of the grand jury selection process will not only make better grand jurors for maintaining defendants’ rights, but will point out the need to maintain the present level of the civil “watchdog” function of the grand jury as well.

This could best be accomplished by dividing the grand jury into two separate entities. San Francisco has done it with effectiveness.

One criminal grand jury would be selected to reflect the criteria needed for effective criminal hearing procedure: random selection, representative of all age, sex and ethnic background of the county population. A second civil grand jury would be selected to reflect the criteria needed for effective civil investigations of county entities.

I wrote a report while on the 1987-88 Orange County Grand July that points out the need for a change in the present criteria used in the grand jury selection process. At present the county seems to be trying to serve two needs and is shortchanging both in the process.

Random selection does not reflect the actuality of what is needed to perform the watchdog function, since that is now (post-Hawkins) what most of the grand jury term is involved with.

The watchdog function demands a selection criteria that will produce grand jurors who have the capabilities to review and report effectively to the citizens of the county.

There is every indication that when a reversal of the Hawkins Decision is obtained, the D.A.’s office will use it frequently, and a saving in both time and money to the county will result. But we must not dilute the equally important civil function that the grand jury is mandated to fulfill.

Legislative expansion in recent years has greatly increased the jurisdiction for grand jury inquiry. This not only provides for more areas of investigation, it lends itself to the overwhelming validity and purpose for which the grand jury is appointed each year.

The county must stop choosing grand jurors only by petty jury criteria and plan ahead for the eventuality of a Hawkins Decision reversal, which will bring the indictment procedure back in such force as to make the “watchdog” function an also-ran in comparison.

GINGER REED

Santa Ana

Ginger Reed was a member of the 1987-88 Orange County Grand Jury.--Ed.