Davis Vetoes Popular Grand Jury Reform

Acceding to arguments of prosecutors, Gov. Gray Davis has vetoed a bill that would have permitted a target of a criminal investigation to have a lawyer present when testifying before a grand jury.

The measure, sponsored by a Huntington Beach legislator once indicted by an Orange County grand jury, would “place a new burden on what is now a reasonably effective grand jury system,” Davis said in his veto message late Saturday night.

The governor said a change in the time-tested system could turn a grand jury investigation into an adversary proceeding. Moreover, the reform proposal had not been thoroughly studied by the legal community, he said.

“The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is an essential element of the grand jury process,” he wrote.

Eleven states permit those under investigation to have a lawyer present while they are questioned. Such mainstream groups as the American Bar Assn. favor the reform to make the process more evenhanded.

The California Legislature overwhelmingly supported the bill. The measure passed the Assembly unanimously, and only four state senators voted against it.

“The governor erred on the side of preserving the status quo, thereby forgoing the opportunity for meaningful reform in this area,” said the bill’s sponsor, Republican Assembly leader Scott Baugh.

Davis’ veto reflects a pattern of steering clear of positions that could be construed as soft on law-and-order issues.

He also vetoed a bill that would have studied the effectiveness of the so-called three-strikes law, which imposes a 25-years-to-life sentence on those convicted a third time on felony charges. His policy against paroling state prison inmates is more rigid than that of his Republican predecessor, Pete Wilson.

Baugh said Monday he will bring the measure back next year.

“The governor made a couple of statements in this veto letter that I believe can be addressed and overcome,” he said. “I’m hopeful he can be persuaded next year that this reform is good for the civil rights of all Californians.”

Baugh was indicted by a grand jury in 1996 on charges of misreporting campaign loans and contributions in a special 1995 election that first put him in office.

The case became politically heated as critics questioned whether the case was even a criminal matter. A judge threw out the indictment and disqualified prosecutors from pursuing it after they refiled charges.

Earlier this year, the state attorney general dropped the criminal action and transferred the matter to the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which later fined Baugh $47,900.

Baugh contends he could have cleared his problems up more quickly had he testified before the grand jury. But he said his attorney advised him not to appear because he was prohibited from bringing the attorney with him.

Under current law, a grand jury witness can leave the room to confer with a lawyer. Under Baugh’s bill, the lawyer would have been allowed to be in the room to give advice to the client but not to ask questions or speak to the grand jury.

An effort two years ago to give targets of investigations the right to a lawyer in the grand jury room was withdrawn amid signals that Wilson would veto it.