Without mentioning names, the foreperson in a grand jury probe is being criticized by some pundits for giving interviews on national media about the experience. Without discussing deliberations or naming those who may be indicted, this is apparently not illegal. But is it a good idea? Example: naming witnesses. Generally at the state level (my experience in Minnesota) what took place during the grand jury's investigation is required to be confidential. It is demeaning to the sanctity of the grand jury process for any grand juror to be hinting at what may result as to indictments. It also raises the specter of jurors revealing juror misconduct which may put an entire trial at risk of a mistrial or verdict being annulled. We have seen it in the past: the petit jury reaches a verdict and within days some or all appear on the major networks for interviews. Many jurors do not want to serve, while others desperately want to serve and have their 15 minutes of fame (as foreseen by Andy Warhol.)
According to Barbara McQuade, law school professor and former federal prosecutor, Georgia state law concerning grand juror disclosures is "somewhat more lax" than Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (See her excellent opinion piece on MSNBC website, 2-23-23)
Update: The presiding judge has made comments that he is concerned ("problematic") about the juror's press tour but it is not illegal so long as she, and other jurors, avoid discussing the jury's deliberations. This grand jury cannot issue indictments.
No comments:
Post a Comment