Grand jury system is wobbly, but not broken

Rome News-Tribune Managing Editor Mike Colombo says beware of easy fixes.

Any legal system that does not allow me to act as judge and jury is clearly flawed, but since that is not going to happen we need to make do with what we have.

Be honest, to one degree or another, doesn’t everyone feel that way?

As I write this column, judicial systems across the United State are struggling with a variety of issues: how to ensure racial equality in the courtroom, how to improve the grand jury system, and most of all, how to ensure everyone gets a fair trial.

While I was being facetious in my opening statement, I think it points out a fundamental fact of human existence: Life is not fair, and someone is always going to think our legal system has given someone a raw deal, not a square one.

Since the system is imperfect, that is going to happen more often than any of us would like.

But beware of easy fixes. In light of the incidents involving police officers in Baltimore, Ferguson and elsewhere, everyone is looking for an answer. Those answers won’t be easy but they are worth pursuing.

One issue that should be addressed is the grand jury system in Georgia and across the nation.

When a police-related shooting occurs, Georgia law allows a law enforcement officer to sit in on the entire proceeding and make a statement at the end that prosecutors can’t question, according to an article written this week by The Associated Press.

A bill filed Monday in the Georgia General Assembly says the officer may still appear at the end of the prosecutor’s presentation and will be allowed to make a statement, but he may be questioned by the prosecutor or the grand jurors and the prosecutor may present rebuttal evidence.

I think this is only fair. In Ferguson, Missouri, last year the grand jury became a shadow trial for a case after a police officer shot and killed a man there.

The grand jury’s job is to determine if a crime may have occurred and if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

By not allowing that case to go to trial, the grand jury more or less found the officer not guilty, and did it all behind closed doors with no public scrutiny. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

BUT … let me caution you. There have been some who have argued that the grand jury system should be done away with in favor of having a judge make the decision if a trial is warranted.

I understand the sentiment but that is a bad idea. Even a grand jury is, in a sense, a ruling by your peers. Those asking for that process to be changed in the wake of Ferguson, are in a sense, asking that more people, not fewer, face trial.

Having a judge make that decision removes the whole peer process, and what makes anyone think a single judge bears no prejudice, no preconceived notion of guilt or innocence?

The grand jury system is a little wobbly, but not broken. Let’s make it work correctly instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I still argue that the legal system is always tipped toward the state and the prosecution. The government pays the police officers’ salaries and the salaries of the prosecutor, and the judge. In the overwhelming number of cases, the suspect has to find his or her defense and find a way to pay for it.

That’s why I always argue it is better for our system to be too lenient instead of too harsh. Want to improve the legal system? So do I. But let’s always err on the side of mercy.