Virtual Grand Juries?
The Acting Administrative Director of the Courts addresses the possibility of conducting grand jury proceedings virtually.
June 16, 2020 at 10:30 AM
5 minute read
A committee has studied the issue of virtual grand juries; two pilot counties are waiting to begin; and critics are skeptical. Let's consider a few points:
• What is the issue? The Constitution guarantees defendants the right to indictment by a grand jury. Before a case may proceed to trial, defendants are entitled to have a grand jury of 23 citizens evaluate an abbreviated version of the evidence against them. If a majority of the grand jury finds there is probable cause and votes to indict, they return a "true bill," and the case proceeds. Otherwise, the grand jury returns a "no bill" and charges are dismissed. In some instances, the prosecutor may return to the grand jury.
• What is the problem? Grand juries are an arm of the court, and they traditionally convene in person in courthouses. With the courts closed to large in-person gatherings, no grand juries have been able to sit since mid-March and 1,611 defendants now held in custody are awaiting grand jury action. Many more who have been released are also waiting for their case to move forward. Space will be limited as criminal trials and other in-person gatherings will need to be held according to social distancing guidelines. And as courthouses reopen in the months ahead, some grand jurors will be reluctant to return.
• Why not meet in a gymnasium or large room outside the courthouse? Large gatherings have not been permitted for months. Plus, we need a solution that will continue until a vaccine is developed. School facilities will likely be unavailable come September, and it is unlikely that adequate space—in or out of courthouses—will be able to accommodate multiple grand juries that serve in all 21 counties. At some point, we also may consider convening in non-Judiciary facilities if they are confirmed available for a substantial period, and if security and solemnity can be maintained with persons dispersed throughout a large area.
• What's the proposal? To conduct a pilot program in two counties that will convene virtual grand jury proceedings. The project would focus on a small number of cases that involve less serious offenses—third- and fourth-degree charges. Those matters typically involve a short presentation by a single law enforcement witness.
• Don't we want grand jurors to be able to evaluate whether a witness is credible by looking the person in the face? Of course, we do. If grand juries meet in large rooms and follow social-distancing practices, some grand jurors will be seated more than 40 feet away from the witness. By comparison, grand jurors will be able to look directly at a witness' face—on a screen immediately in front of them—and assess each comment, movement, and gesture up close.
• How can we be confident the process will be kept confidential? Only grand jurors would be able to log into virtual proceedings with electronic devices. Today, we rely on jurors to abide by an oath of secrecy that all grand jurors are sworn to follow; the same would be true for virtual proceedings. We have supplemented the standard grand jury charge and secrecy oath to specifically address the requirements of participation in a virtual proceeding.
• How do we know this can work? The Judiciary tested the process using mock grand jurors, prosecutors, and witnesses. The next step is to try it in real life and assess the process. To date, the Judiciary has conducted more than 35,000 other types of actual court events with more than 320,000 participants. The technology has worked well in a variety of settings from pretrial conferences to Supreme Court arguments.
• What if the pilot project doesn't work well? If IT staff can't fix problems that surface, the project will end.
• What happens if the pilot project works? There may well be motions in individual cases that challenge the virtual process. Courts will decide them in due course, just as they now decide other challenges to individual indictments.
• What happens if we don't try? Hundreds more defendants will continue to wait to be charged by a grand jury. Well more than a thousand will wait behind bars; others will wait while under pretrial supervision and restrictions. All of them will live for an indefinite period of time with the prospect of future charges hanging over their heads.
Anything other than a regular in-person grand jury proceeding may have limitations, but for a state that has been (and may continue to be) hard hit by COVID-19, we must explore the best immediate option for restarting our criminal justice process in a way that will enable a fair cross section of citizens to participate in the grand jury process.
Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., is Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, at the Administrative Office of the Courts, in Trenton.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How I Made Managing Partner: 'Be the Uniting Voice of the Firm,' Says George Ogilvie of McDonald Carano
- 2People in the News—Jan. 31, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Fox Rothschild
- 3Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 4Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 5The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250