2nd Grand Jury Backed as Way to Defuse Bias Charges

Stung by allegations that the Los Angeles County Grand Jury had excluded Latinos and other minorities for decades, key players in the criminal justice system Monday expressed strong support for impaneling a second grand jury as a step toward reform.

The presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court, the district attorney and his challenger, and the public defender’s office went on record favoring a switch to two grand juries to increase minority participation.

The growing support for the dual grand juries follows weeks of legal challenges and an 11th-hour call for more minority applicants. It also follows several national studies that claim courts across the country treat blacks and Latinos more harshly than whites.

Under the reform plan being advanced by Victor E. Chavez, presiding judge of the Superior Court, there would be two grand jury panels: one to continue as a government watchdog and the other to conduct sensitive criminal investigations and issue indictments.

For decades, the grand jury selection process, patterned after that of the old good-government panels, has been criticized as a dinosaur. The 23 members and four alternates are drawn by lottery from a pool of prospects who volunteer or are nominated by judges. A committee of judges screens the candidates, who serve one-year terms.

By drawing members for the second grand jury from the pool of trial jurors, officials hope to impanel a more diverse grand jury to hear criminal matters.

San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara and Orange counties already have responded to similar legal challenges by turning to the dual grand jury system.

“I think we will go to a second grand jury,” said Chavez, who presides over the largest local court system in the nation. He said he has discussed the dual grand jury system with Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti and county Supervisor Gloria Molina.

Molina could not be reached Monday, but Garcetti confirmed that he supports a second grand jury in “concept.” He added that many details need to be worked out.

“We’d have to figure out: How long does a participant sit? What do they handle--indictments only, or indictments and criminal investigations?” Garcetti said.

Veteran prosecutor Steve Cooley, who is challenging Garcetti in the November runoff, said he favors a second county grand jury. “I think it’s time, maybe overdue,” Cooley said. “We need two grand juries.”

Chavez estimated the added annual cost to the county would be $500,000. He said that after discussing the issue with David Janssen, the county’s chief administrative officer, he is optimistic about obtaining funding for a second grand jury in the 2000-01 budget.

The lack of grand jury diversity has dogged the courts in Los Angeles for more than 30 years. Challenges in the early and late 1960s and early 1970s failed, as did challenges in the early 1990s.

The dual grand jury system last was suggested as a cure about five years ago, but did not receive support from the court leadership or the district attorney’s office, according to prosecutors and Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, chairman of the court’s jury selection committee.

The issue was raised again earlier this spring when two defense attorneys, in separate cases, challenged their clients’ criminal indictments. Victor Sherman and Charles L. Lindner alleged that the lack of minorities on the panel was part of a 30-year pattern of ethnic exclusion.

The attorneys noted that Latinos in particular had been severely underrepresented, even as the Latino population swelled: There were no Latinos on this year’s grand jury, although Latinos make up nearly 50% of the county’s population, the lawyers alleged.

Lindner’s challenge is in limbo, while Sherman’s is before the state Court of Appeal on a very narrow issue: whether a neutral judge from another county should decide his grand jury challenge.

“We got to them,” said Sherman. “How cool.”

Sherman added that he will continue to pursue his appeal until, he said, “The court acknowledges the institutional racism that has been going on in Los Angeles County for the past 30 years. I feel the only way to change the system is to bring the facts to light.”

Chavez and other court officials insisted that the recent round of legal challenges did not spark the reform movement. He emphasized that that any action taken would not affect ongoing cases.

Pointing out that he is Mexican American, as are the judge who compiles the list of grand jurors and the jury administrators, Chavez said, “Anyone who’s suggesting discrimination against anyone doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

He added that the jury pool is limited because of the demands of service. Serving on the civil grand jury is the equivalent of a full-time job for one year. They meet five days a week for 50 weeks and are paid $25 a day.

“It’s a small number of people who have that docent mentality,” Chavez said.

Times staff writers Mitchell Landsberg and Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this story.