Written by ron humphries   

There has a problem evidenced concerning the Grand Jury system.
It is clearly evident despite a racial makeup being diverse, they seem to just not be doing the job for which they were intended.

To backround just a bit….

Why a grand jury at all…well it is a constitutional requirement.
What do they do..basically they decide to proceed or not with charges that a district attorney brings, usually subsequent to a police officers report of crime.

Proposals for solution...
None have ventured much of a real solution other than to propose that we perhaps remove them entirely. When this first presented as problem, back in the 50's and 60's the solution, which was a honest good attempt to do some good, was to make racially diverse the constituancy of any grand jury. Why then as most are diverse do we find a problem,?

I will propose the cause..

It is the pay!!!

Most states compensate directly with little to none in that regard. Payments usually equate to less than minimum wage in all direct paid, grand jury sitting fees.

States may pass laws to the effect of saying, your regular employer must pay your salary, if you are called and do serve. Or some large companies will do so voluntarily, in the interests of civic duty.
And governments…all government employees, their employer, the government will invariably pay their salary in full while on grand jury duty.

The result of this. If you are a small employer, your place of employement is usually not required to fulfill the requirement to normally provide full salary while on jury duty. So they may in part, or in some states, provide nothing at all. Most commonly, since you cannnot be paid by them, or paid enough by them.. you will simply apply for a hardship exception to the rule of jury duty. You ask the judge who presides over the jury process for exception due to economic hardship.

If you are poor and cannot afford the bus for instance,(even though many provide transportation fares they are not immediate), or you have kids, are unemployed, and can not afford child care ..you apply for this exception; which is invariably granted. There are many nuances to the issuce of economic hardship, I am only intending to mention the basic issue and general process. The actuality of it varies by state but the concept remains the same.

The result in practice of this all

. Who actually remains on the usable Grand Jury pool will be largly those in almost all states…of large business or governmental employ. Others will be there as well, retirees, wealthy people, people who just want to serve on them…but largely that is your pool.

Now big business employees and government employees are nice people. Truly I have been both. But are they people who go with the status quo or against? Look around you if work in those places…truthfully how are they who surround you?

The answer is quite forcefully and assuredly almost always, these are status quo people. It just attracts those people. Very nice they are, and they hold many qualties, we may not have, but if you expect that group to go against the flow…..forget about it. There are exception, but the vast vast majority.
.
.Well due to low or no pay... largly that is your pool.
They may be black they may be white, they may be asian, they may be hispanic, if they work in those environments they are with few exceptions a status quo type person.

Now who is status quo? Who represents unconsciously to us status quo? Well who in our world of that type maintains order? Is not order, really status quo…. the maintance of what is, not the potential of what may be?

Yes it is.

The police officer is status quo. He represents that, though not always consciously,
For one who puts a high priority on status quo, unconsciously, he has a high priority in that regard.

So that accepted as fact., Who brings the charges to the Grand Jury? Usually it is the district attorney. Who is it that is actually nameing the charges or stating the charge why this person is charged(though the accused may not be actually present), the police officer, who is always present.

So who is status quo..the police officer. Who stands against the furthurance of status quo in this context….the accused.
So supporting status quo in a unconscious manner…the police officer is found for.

If the opposite presents, the officer is charged. Who presents the charges? It would customarily be the DA. But who will be present and is the issue being charged..the protector of status quo…the police officer.

So with this pool the suspect is almost always found worthy of being charged, and the police officer, is almost always found not worthy of being charged.
It is all about status quo.

I am simplifying most of this and not stateing in each and every state this is specifically how it works. There are after all 50 states, each with specific order on how jurors are paid and exceptions to the necessity to serve on jury's.

But largely this is basically it.

I served on one this past summer. All told I think I heard 10 or so cases. I am by no means a expert on the process at all. But of the bunch of us who were in the jury room, I am pretty certain all were either government employed peoples or employes of big business.
We ended up with no bill, or no charge, on 2 of about 50 charges. Most offenders suffer multiple charges.

The saying in legal circles is…a grand jury would indite a ham sandwich. It is not for nothing they say that.
Constituted as is, they would.

The solution.

Everyone and their daughter and or brother remotely connected to the legal system to include the janitor moppiing the floor, is well compensated.
Why under the sun, are the only ones little or not paid at all the jurors?
Why is it our patriotic duty and not everyone else's?

Ok I get it, in theory, who pays us may bias us…but are we not more biased by not having pay in this manner? And if we wanted to reduce bias from pay, one could easily disconnect payment with result. A person is selected to the pool they are paid and paid well. End of story, pay having nothing to do with anything. You are selected and you are paid.
In any event grand jurists though paid a starvation wage if the employer does not kick in, the judiciary pays us anyway…so why not good pay?

Why not?

Honestly, most Grand Juries are not of the nature of the Fergurson sittings, nor the NYC sittings. Most are just a hour or so, affair. But most, by number of those charged, are subject to the one hour grand jury hearing, not the several day grand jury hearings of the celebrity or larger charge, status category.
And accomodations for pay, may be made in several states for long term sittings, but not for short term events. But short term events are the bulk of the contacts with the general public.

So in all states, a highly paid grand jury must be a requirement. A federal law could inspire this result, as a grand jury requirement is a constitutional requirement, which is allowed the states, but is not necessarily defined by the states.

Till this is done, grand juries will continue to indite ham sandwiches, despite their racial makeup, and let free officers who really should be subject to trial.

So that is that and this is this. I know this is not well written, and my communication skills are lacking, but I think you probably get the basic point. In almost all states, this is, with some internal variance, the situation. Long long grand jury sittings in certain contexts are compensated for and well. But that is not where most charged, end up.

Ordinary poor peoples do not serve on grand juries. It is not for lack of intelligence or anything like that, it is because the system largly excludes those. More and more of us are poor nowadays, and unless remedied, this will tend more and more to a select type being on the grand juries.
So it will as result get worse and worse this thing of grand jury. Add good pay and the poor, which is now most of us, will welcome it..

I would say 30 per hour. Overall in a judicial framework budget, that pay would be in single digets compared to the rest. It sounds like a lot individually, perhaps, to the entire budget of such places, it is minor. The places of trial they are usually virtual mansions. You really have to ask yourself can they not even afford to pay us a good salary as they do themselves?

I could live with more, but perhaps start there.

Our grand juries, despite the advances in racial makeup,(largely due to litigation result that) they are still largly not our peers. They in comparison to those mostly charged, are the rich(though they are middle class in other respects) sitting in jury upon the poor.

That is the actuality of this thing and the result is not what the constitution intended.
Equal it was intended should largly be our jurors.
In our world now largely due to income disparity…we must pay grand jurors and really all jurors well. They deserve such.

We could begin to solve this by first floating the idea, which i am here. And then by politically floating the idea. Which is mentioning it in email, personal corrospondance or by phone to our elected state or federal representatives. They will not have a clue but you can educate them.

If you agree. I suggest first one should explore the state where one is in to see pay accommodations. With few exceptions ,I think without employer kick in, it is miserable.
And if the employer does kick in(which is mostly the cast), it biases the jury pool constituency.

So that's it!! Thanks for your time and attention.

Ron