In perhaps the best article I have ever read in the Dispatch, Tara Becker-Gray did a superb job of explaining to the public the new plan of Rock Island County State's Attorney Dora Villarreal to use the grand jury, in lieu of the preliminary hearing, to commence felony prosecutions in Rock Island County.
Ms. Villarreal's plan, of course, is not really new. The grand jury historically has been a part of English-American law at least since King Henry II and his Assize of Clarendon (1166). The preliminary hearing is the more recent innovation.
So what are the advantages and disadvantages of charging criminal conduct via a grand jury indictment rather than by the State's Attorney's information?
First, the advantages.
Ms. Villarreal argues that preliminary hearing mornings are "chaotic." She says that every Tuesday 30 to 34 'prelims' are set for hearing, but only three to six will actually go to a hearing; in the rest, defendants will waive the hearing.
That comports with my experience as presiding judge of Rock Island County's Criminal Division, where I served most of the last 10 years of my judgeship.
She further argues that a police officer is called for each of the 30 to 34 cases (to testify to establish probable cause so as to justify holding the defendant on bond or in custody until trial). Ms. Villlarreal is rightly concerned that most of the officers called to testify never do, because most defendant waive their “prelims" and thus, their time can be better spent elsewhere.
My experience tells me she's correct.
This waste of police officer time is the only real justification for employing the grand jury (as opposed to preliminary hearings) to establish probable cause.
If each grand jury session lasts seven minutes, officers can be scheduled to appear at times certain, rather than waiting as the judge juggles 30 to 34 prelims to accommodate the schedules of defendants, defense attorneys and prosecutors.
Ms. Villarreal is also correct when she says judges, court clerks, and correctional officers are not present at grand jury sessions. But this advantage is illusory, as explained below.
Chief Judge Frank Fuhr adds, "From my point of view, (using the grand jury) actually frees up a courtroom on Tuesday mornings, so we can use it for other purposes.”
This savings is also largely illusory.
Tuesday morning prelims are scheduled for 210 minutes. But only about 30 minutes are actually devoted to hearing evidence at the three to six hearings. The remaining 180 minutes are employed in the formal arraignment of defendants. That should include reading them the charge, entering the pretrial order(s) and warning defendants they will be tried in absentia if they fail to appear for trial (this includes an enumeration of the trial rights the defendant will forfeit if he fails to appear for trial).
While the 30 minutes employed in conducting the three to six prelims will be saved, the other 180 minutes will necessarily be utilized later in conducting the formal arraignment of the newly indicted defendants.
Now, the disadvantages:
The grand jury consists of 16 jurors; 12 are necessary to make a quorum. Grand jurors have to be paid $10 per day, plus a fixed sum for mileage based on the city where they reside. It will cost the county roughly $200 for each additional session. Twelve extra sessions would cost the county roughly $2,400; 24 more weekly sessions, an extra $4,800 per year.
Transcripts cost $4 per page. If an average of 66 grand jury transcripts are prepared every two weeks, of just 6 pages each, the cost to the county will be about $42,000 annually.
There will be an offset of perhaps $7,500 as the three to six preliminary hearing transcripts will no longer be required.
My analysis is this:
Ms. Villarreal proposes to call the grand jury in every other week. That means it will have to hear 60 to 68 cases every time it meets.
At 7 minutes per case — and that's fast — if there are 68 cases, it will take 8 hours to handle 68 indictments. That would be an 8-to-4 working day, without any breaks or delays. Calling them every week would keep the load manageable (30 to 34 cases).
The real question is whether allowing police officers to go about their jobs outweighs the additional juror and transcript costs. Does the benefit to the officers justify the plan? Arguably, it does. But the additional cost of transcripts and bringing in grand jurors weighs heavily against the plan. Arguably, the costs outweigh the benefit.
That being said, Ms. Villarreal's plan does nothing to insure a speedy disposition of cases — and disposition is what really matters.
When I surveyed the criminal docket about a year ago, I was flabbergasted to learn that a great many cases remained pending for a year or more. That is utterly unacceptable. Disposing of cases within 60 days, on average, from formal arraignment, should be the goal of every judge in the criminal division, and of the State's Attorney or candidates for State's Attorney (and their assistants).
Indicting is the easy part. Speedy and appropriate disposition is the hard part.
Posted: QCOline.com November 15, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment