Officer-involved shootings put prosecutors in a bind. While prosecutors normally dominate the pretrial investigation and charging process, these tragedies force prosecutors to change their approach. The incident often pits the victim’s family and community, who feel the case symbolizes a biased and unjust system, against officers and departments, who feel attacked for following their training in a high-stress situation. Prosecutors seek a result that preserves their support from both groups. To resolve this quagmire, prosecutors pass the buck, asking grand jurors to make charging determinations despite their tenuous understanding of the system, their powers, or their role. Many scholars have argued that grand jurors are destined to fail at the task.
This Article explains that unique circumstances in officer-involved shootings position grand jurors well to prevent future tragedies. While prosecutors ordinarily present grand jurors only a perfunctory version of events while seeking a quick and severe charge, prosecutors approach officer-involved shootings with greater care. They conduct thorough investigations and make complete evidentiary presentations that may last for months. Prosecutors then limit the grand jurors’ choices to an up-or-down vote on indictment, hoping either result will shield the prosecutors from criticism. But through those detailed evidentiary presentations, grand jurors—unelected, individual citizens with minimal political motivations—develop a deep understanding of these tragic cases. Grand jurors are transformed from laypeople to experts; they learn both what caused this shooting and what might stop the next.
Grand jurors in officer-involved shootings should be empowered to do far more than simply vote on indictment. They should know they can expand their investigatory ambit, comment on substantive law that favors officers, publicly report their views on the case and police training, or make referrals to civilian review boards. Empowering grand juries to harvest their “lay expertise” is a vital criminal justice reform.
* Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Associate Professor, University of Akron School of Law. I am thankful for the many helpful comments of Chris Slobogin, Nancy King, Barry Friedman, Ric Simmons, Jenny Carroll, Lisa Griffin, Kate Weisburd, Maria Ponomarenko, Don Braman, Ben Grunwald, Kenneth Nunn, Megan Stevenson, Farhang Heydari, Christopher Lau, Anna Offit, Ngozi Okidegbe, Lauryn Gouldin, Rachel Moran, Justin Murray, Sean Hill, Jonathan Booth, Russell Gold, Fareed Hyatt, Nila Bala, Ron Wright, Sam Kamin, and David Klingler. Thank you also to the participants in the 16th Annual Vanderbilt Criminal Justice Roundtable, the ABA Criminal Justice Section Academics Committee and AALS Criminal Law Section works-in-progress roundtables, and the Akron Law faculty research and development workshop series. I am also indebted for the excellent research assistance of Lindsey Saltz.
The full text of this Article is available to download as a PDF.