February 16, 2008
At least one expert speaks about the grand jury lawsuit

The lawsuit filed by grand jurors in the David Medina arson investigation is called "doubtful" by at least one expert interviewed by the Chronicle.


"I can't see any merit whatsoever to it," University of Houston law professor David Crump said of the unusual lawsuit. "It's so crazy that you have to ask, 'Where are they coming from?' "

The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment from a court that would give the former grand jurors the right to discuss evidence supporting their indictments without fear of punishment. It argues that they have a right to use the evidence to "fairly respond" to statements made about their motives by prosecutors -- in contradiction of the oath of secrecy placed on them by state law.

"These grand jurors have done a great deal of harm," Crump said. "The prosecutor has the responsibility for making the decision about whether to go forward. The grand jurors do not understand the burden of proof, that it's on the state of Texas, and that it's beyond a reasonable doubt and that just having some evidence won't do."

Adam Gershowitz, who teaches criminal law and procedure at South Texas College of Law, said the assistant foreman who drafted the lawsuit, attorney Jeffrey Dorrell, may be right about one thing: There's never been a lawsuit quite like this in Texas history.

"I certainly have never heard of anything like it," Gershowitz said.

[...]

Dorrell argues that he and others have a right to talk about evidence brought before them because, for a portion of their term, they were not a legally constituted grand jury, and thus are not bound by the oath. The grand jury was finally disbanded when it was discovered that its term was improperly extended.

"It is an interesting argument, but I predict one that will not succeed," Crump said. "It's too cute. There are certain principles that can't be evaded in that manner. They still got the evidence in their capacity as grand jurors, and they got that under the color of law. The reason behind it applies with equal force."


By my count, that's one expert with actual doubts, and one expert making a sort of meta-comment. I'd have thought a story with a headline that says "Experts have doubts" would have printed statements expressing dubiousness from more than one expert, but maybe they were all out of the office that day. Whatever. For what it's worth, I think this is a convincing argument that this suit won't go anywhere, and as I said before I'm concerned about the precedent it might set, but I still want to see it play out. So stay tuned.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on February 16, 2008 to Legal matters
Comments

I have to ask if a grand jury has ever been declared "null and void" before although while not an attorney I don't know that it matters simply because the evidence was presented to what the judge believed was a properly empaneled grand jury so the grand jury would still have to abide by the law and not disclose the evidence although they do have the right to appear before another grand jury as I understand it although I doubt the Harris County District Attorney's Office will be willing to tell them "when and where."

What Bob Ryan and Perry Dorrell and the others did do was alert everyone to just how corrupt the whole system in Harris County is and that of course may be one of the reasons why the Attorney General decided to remove Chuck Rosenthal from office.

One question I have had is how another judge other than the one who empaneled the grand jury can dismiss an indictment. I am not sure if anyone noticed that. It seems to me if a matter has not gone to trial, the only judge that should be allowed to arbitrarily overrule a grand jury is the judge who empaneled the grand jury. If not then that is certainly something the legislature needs to look at.

I think you need to be careful about "disclosure through lawsuit" even though in this case I do agree with it simply because I doubt Vic Wisner intends to present the same evidence to another gran jury. And that of course is where the real can of worms in all of this may lie.

Anyone who claims the entire district attorney's office isn't corrupted from years of Johnny Holmes and Chuck Rosenthal does so simply as a result of a "vested interest" as far as I'm concerned. Most will continue on just doing what they want and covering up for each other when someone calls them on something.

They may have taken note of the ramifications of the statement by the Attorney General's Office. And they may not have.

I think they have done so much damage to the lives of so many in our community they all need to go.

Speaking out only when you think it's safe to do so really doesn't say much except that you place the value of a paycheck above principles.

"So maybe that guy may have been innocent. But I have kids to feed."

That really is appalling. And probably happened quite often. They all really need to go. Each and every one of them.

Posted by: Baby Snooks on February 17, 2008 10:47 AM

I may have put Perry Dorell instead Jeffrey Dorrell. Sorry.

Posted by: Baby Snooks on February 17, 2008 10:50 AM