High Court Ruling Bolsters Grand Juries : Jurisprudence: State justices uphold Proposition 115 provision that indicted defendants are not entitled to also have preliminary hearings.

Breathing new life into California’s grand juries as a tool for prosecutors, the state Supreme Court held Thursday that defendants indicted by grand juries are no longer entitled to preliminary hearings to contest charges against them.

In a 6-to-1 decision, the court held that such a right--granted by a controversial 1978 ruling under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird--had been eliminated under Proposition 115, the wide-ranging anti-crime initiative approved by the voters in June, 1990.

The court, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, said the clear intent of the voters in passing the initiative was to bring “swift and fair” criminal proceedings--in part by eliminating the need for preliminary hearings for indicted defendants.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, defendants indicted by grand juries will proceed directly to trial in Superior Court.

A state prosecutor said the ruling would reinvigorate the grand jury system as a means of charging defendants--particularly in cases involving political corruption, ongoing or undercover investigations, child witnesses or other situations where secrecy is important.

“Unquestionably, the overall impact will be significant,” said state Deputy Atty. Gen. Laurence K. Sullivan. “We’ll see the benefits in speedier and fairer justice.”

Alameda County Assistant Public Defender Jay B. Gaskill agreed that more cases now will go to the grand jury, but predicted that the vast majority still will go through the alternative process of a preliminary hearing. Such hearings, he noted, provide both the prosecution and defense with an opportunity to test their case before trial--and time-saving plea bargains often result.

“Preliminary hearings perform a weeding-out function,” said Gaskill. “The grand jury process is an anachronism and cumbersome . . . and essentially a rubber-stamp for the prosecution.”

Under state law, defendants may be formally charged either through indictment by a grand jury or through a complaint filed directly by prosecutors. Until 1978, defendants indicted by grand juries were not entitled to preliminary hearings, where--unlike grand jury proceedings--they could appear with a lawyer before a judge, present evidence and question witnesses.

In the 1978 ruling, issued in a case called Hawkins vs. Superior Court, the justices held that this “considerable disparity” in procedural rights violated the state Constitution. The court ordered that indicted defendants, like others, be given preliminary hearings.

For all practical purposes, the ruling shut down the role of grand juries in criminal prosecutions. The decision was widely cited by court critics in their successful attempt to defeat Bird and two other liberal justices in the 1986 general election. Abolition of the 1978 decision was a prime goal of the backers of Proposition 115. California was the only state in the nation that had granted criminal defendants such a right under their state constitutions.

In Thursday’s case, Robert Bowens was among 22 people indicted on drug-related charges by a grand jury in Alameda County last January. At his arraignment, Bowens asked for a post-indictment preliminary hearing, saying he was entitled to such a proceeding despite Proposition 115’s stated abolition of that right for indicted defendants. His prosecution was delayed while the issue was taken to the state Supreme Court.

In Lucas’ 20-page majority opinion, the justices rejected Bowens’ contention that denial of a preliminary hearing violated his right to equal protection of the law. Neither the state nor federal Constitutions now require preliminary hearings for indicted defendants, the court said.

The justices also turned down Bowens’ claim that even if he had no right to a formal preliminary hearing, he still was entitled to some other remedy--such as a limited hearing to present evidence in his favor. Such a hearing, the court said, would be unconstitutional under Proposition 115.

Justice Stanley Mosk, author of the 1978 ruling, dissented. The disparity in procedural protections for defendants the court found 13 years ago still exists, Mosk said.

The ruling Thursday marked the latest in a series of high court tests of the 1990 initiative, which was aimed at limiting procedural rights of defendants and accelerating the pace of the criminal justice system.

Last December, the justices invalidated a provision that would have required state courts to follow federal rulings in applying state constitutional rights of defendants. The court, however, also rejected contentions the initiative was invalid because it violated a rule limiting such measures to a single-subject.

In more recent decisions, the court has allowed Proposition 115’s procedural reforms to be applied to the thousands of cases pending when it was enacted, upheld provisions requiring the defense to disclose more evidence to the prosecution before trial and allowed police officers to give hearsay testimony from victims and other witnesses at preliminary hearings.