Document text
Lawyers: Wait-and-see is wise By Chris Bristol Criminal defense attorneys in Medford are waiting to see what happens in Grants Pass before they decide whether to weigh-in on the growing controversy over grand jury briefings. In recent weeks, lawyers in Grants Pass have challenged some 250 felony indictments in Josephine County Circuit Court, arguing that previously secret "orientations" or briefings on drug and sex crimes have prejudiced grand juries there for years. Although prosecutors say the practice has been limited only to drug cases in Jackson County, not sex crimes, defense attorneys here say they still are concerned about the effect such briefings have on grand jurors. But taking a wait-and-see approach is wise, they add, because the challenges in Josephine County court are being combined for a hearing en masse that could set a precedent for the rest of the state. Defense attorneys in Grants Pass "are kind of taking the lead," said Bert Putney, director of Southern Oregon Public Defenders, "because the situation there is more aggravated than in Jackson County." Meanwhile, The Oregonian newspaper has reported that similar moves could follow in Clatsop, Marion and Douglas counties, where grand juries received unsworn briefings on drugs; and in Deschutes County, where grand juries were given unsworn briefings on drugs, sexual abuse and domestic violence. At issue is the practice of allowing police officers and others not sworn-in as witnesses � and unlisted as such on indictments � to provide general information about drug and sexual abuse to grand jurors. In Oregon, prosecutors cannot force suspects to stand trial on felony charges without permission from a judge or a grand jury. An indictment circumvents the judiciary � as a result, virtually every felony case in Oregon is done this way. The practice of briefing grand juries apparently has been going on in Josephine County for more than 10 years. Defense attorneys said they never knew about it; they inadvertently figured it out from reading about it in a newsletter. Prosecutors defend such briefings, saying they provide an efficient way of answering questions from grand jurors who are unfamiliar with the drug culture. But defense attorneys say grand juries are not intended to be an arm of the district attorney�s office and that briefings can prejudice their partiality and lead to indictments that prosecutors then use to coerce plea bargains. Gary Berlant, a public defender who works in both Grants Pass and Medford, said a judge from Coos County has been tentatively assigned to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a ruling that could settle the controversy. He said defense attorneys in Grants Pass challenged virtually every felony indictment there, not just drug and sex cases, because the grand jury system is so secret that nobody but prosecutors knows for sure what was really going on. "We feel like we need more information before we can really be sure" how the briefings affected other cases, he said. The issue could be a tempest in a teapot. Many legal experts predict that even if the courts throw out the indictments, prosecutors won�t be barred from simply seeking new indictments without the briefings. Berlant and Putney said the real issue is the way grand juries do business. They suggest changes in the law, such as recording grand jury proceedings and uniform instructions about the role of grand jurors. "The law says that grand jurors have a lot more power to do things than we believe they�re being instructed about," Berlant said. "They�re not supposed to be rubber stamps." Reach reporter Chris Bristol at 776-4487, or e-mail [email protected] Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2001 Mail Tribune, Inc.