‘Incomprehensible’ Decisions by the D.A. : Challenger: The current district attorney all too willingly substitutes grand-jury secrecy for his own prosecutorial judgment.

Maintaining confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the criminal-justice system is of paramount importance to all who are interested in the effective prosecution of people who commit crimes.

Unfortunately, the recently released report on the use of excessive force within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has raised dramatic doubts about whether that public confidence is justified. The report by retired Judge James G. Kolts severely criticized the office of the Los Angeles County district attorney for “incomprehensible” prosecutorial judgments and for its failure to prosecute more than one Sheriff’s Department shooting incident in the last decade.

Decisions to prosecute police shootings or misconduct are among the most controversial and emotional, generating strong feelings among both the police and the community. These decisions must not be “incomprehensible.”

At the heart of the problem in cases involving the police is the fact that the current district attorney--my boss--all too willingly substitutes the secrecy and unaccountability of a grand jury investigation for his own prosecutorial judgment. If the grand jury does not return an indictment, the evidentiary process is tucked way from public scrutiny forever.

And there’s the rub. The public never learns the reasoning behind the decision not to prosecute. Members of the public are not allowed to critically review the evidence to be certain that the district attorney properly did his job.

Questions will arise about the district attorney’s objectivity in such cases: Do prosecutors aggressively pursue criminal charges against the men and women they work with side-by-side in the courtroom every day? Or are they apt to give their colleagues in the police department the benefit of the doubt? Did prosecutors call every witness they should have and ask all the necessary questions? Such an information void will only lead to destructive speculation among the public. Those unanswered questions are equally unfair to the accused officer, who will forever walk under a cloud of public doubt until the full story is told.

The district attorney can follow a different path toward criminal prosecution. His deputies and investigative staff can weigh the available evidence themselves and decide if there is enough to file a criminal complaint without presenting the case to the grand jury. And then, if the decision is not to prosecute, the district attorney can open the evidence and his legal analysis to public inspection. This is the path I would choose.

Grand jury investigations spare the district attorney from public criticism and political damage, but they leave too many unanswered questions and corrode the effectiveness of the entire criminal-justice system. The district attorney must have the political courage to accept professional responsibility for his decisions--especially decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute an officer.

Right now, I believe the public does question the district attorney’s credibility in these cases. The only way public distrust can be cleared away--the only way to fully dispel doubts about an officer’s conduct--is with an open exchange of information. And the only way to keep the channels of information clear of obstruction is by keeping all police shooting and misconduct cases in the public domain from beginning to end.

The district attorney, and not the grand jury, should be deciding the merit of these cases.