Louisiana Voice

An open letter to Members of The Congressional Black Caucus and other Members troubled by the lack of transparency and justice by grand juries examining the abuse of power and excessive use of force by police:

While at Georgetown Law School (1969-1971) I worked for Congressman Allard Lowenstein (D-NY, 1969-1971) to organize Congressional hearings on the excessive use of force by police and the National Guard; I was a U.S. Capitol Hill Policeman for a few weeks before clerking at DOJ in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division investigating the excessive use of force.

As Alabama’s Attorney General (1987-1991), I advocated for victims’ families to have the right to be present or have a lawyer present in a grand jury.

Use of excessive force by police resulting in death of black citizens is not unusual, yet holding police accountable is.

How to ensure a measure of justice for families of victims of the excessive use of force by police? The answer is simple and so is the solution.

Police and prosecutors too often view themselves as wearing the same jersey-playing on the same team. Prosecutors protect police. Because of a Supreme Court decision in 1976 (Imbler v Pachman) and the Federal Tort Claims Act provided by Congress, prosecutors have ABSOLUTE immunity from civil liability, so they can act with impunity. Prosecutors can present false evidence or withhold exculpatory evidence from grand juries in order to get an indictment…or not.

Grand juries are a secret proceeding so prosecutors have free reign. There’s no judge or lawyer for the victim’s family present. 

So, how best to ensure justice in a grand jury?

First, allow the victim’s family to have a lawyer present in the grand jury as a check on truth. We know Prosecutors only tell the grand jurors what the prosecutors want them to hear.

Secondly, to voir dire (to question) the jurors. Currently no one ensures racially balanced, neutral jurors in a grand jury setting. (For all we know, some of Breonna Taylor’s grand jurors might have had relatives in law enforcement or members of the KKK.)

Third, the “victim’s” lawyer would ensure that all evidence is presented. They could object to evidence or testimony proposed by the government and offer evidence or testimony for the victim. Such issues would be decided by a judge, the same as in a civil deposition. If this “due process” safeguard is important where monetary damages are at stake in a civil proceeding, surely this due process safeguard should be in place where someone’s life is at issue.  

Finally, while not identifying members of the grand jury, the family member’s lawyer would make a public report of what transpired. A well-informed public, strengthens public faith in our justice system and in our democracy. 

Holding police accountable will not only provide a measure of justice, it will also help curtail the excessive use of force.

Respectfully submitted.

Don Siegelman

Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003

Lt. Governor, 1995-1999

Attorney General, 1987-1991

Secretary of State, 1979-1987

(Editor’s note: Don Siegelman wrote the letter above from his personal experience with the judicial system as it can be manipulated when someone like Karl Rove is pulling the strings. The the efforts of Rove, a judge who later was forced to resign after beating his wife, and a Republican U.S. Attorney set Siegelman up as he was preparing to run again for the office of Alabama governor. He was convicted on a single count in a trial that violated all the norms of a fair and just system and served his sentence at the federal facility in Oakdale, Louisiana. For further information, read Siegelman’s BOOK, Stealing Our Democracy: How the Political Assassination of a Governor Threatens Our Nation.)