Utah police officers shot and killed a record number of people last year, yet in the Beehive State, like the rest of the nation, only a small percent of officers are ever charged in such deaths, ever convicted.
There were three times as many officer-involved shootings in 2018 than in 2017, reports show.
While not aimed at this issue, a state grand jury reform bill introduced Friday by state Rep. Merrill Nelson could lead to more citizens being able to tell a panel of judges that a grand jury should be called to look into police misconduct.
Nelson’s HB233 is aimed at making state grand juries a more workable part of the state’s judiciary, the sponsor tells UtahPolicy.com.
However, specifically listed in the bill as one reason for a grand jury is misconduct by police officers and elected and appointed public officials.
Utah’s state grand jury law is ineffectual, cumbersome and rarely used, says Nelson, R-Grantsville, an attorney.
Currently, every three years a five-judge panel must visit a state court jurisdiction; advertise they are in town to hear any requests for a grand jury.
But every three years is a long time. And even when the panel is in town, it’s not often anyone asks to testify before them.
And it is rare that any state grand jury is used – an exception being the case of kidnapped teenager Elizabeth Smart and her two abusers – one who was released from prison last year. Officials thought about calling a secret state grand jury to hear the Smart case but ultimately used the federal grand jury process because it works so much better.
HB233 would set up state court district panels of three judges, and any citizen or prosecutor could appear before the panel at any time, give sworn testimony, and ask that a grand jury of citizens be empaneled to hear their complaints.
The panel of judges’ work is secret, as is the evidence given to a grand jury.
“It is really a hit and miss process now,” said Nelson about the state grand jury process.
But aside from the faulty current state grand jury process, there are reoccurring questions that local county and city prosecutors are too close to their police officers.
And so prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges of misconduct against law officers, even in cases of killing and violence against the citizenry.
Like other places in the U.S., in Utah cases against police officers who shoot and kill citizens as part of their jobs are rarely prosecuted – with little alternatives to the dead person’s loved ones or civil rights groups if prosecutors don’t bring charges themselves.
The grand jury process, empaneled by judges, is one alternative to bypass prosecutors – either elected or appointed ones.
Nelson says he’s bringing HB233 NOT to solve any concern he has over police misconduct. Or public official misconduct, either.
But he does single out those officials in his bill.
He does so, he says, because there is an inherent conflict of interest when local prosecutors are asked to look into issues involving people he or she may actually know, or a group, like police, that he or she respects and has to work with.
And for elected prosecutors – like Utah’s county attorneys and attorney general – there may be political pressure NOT to charge local law officers and officials.
For example, Salt Lake County Attorney Sim Gill was opposed in his re-election last year by several local law enforcement associations, likely because Gill has pursued actions against cops in the past.
In a place like Utah, which traditionally honors its police and fire employees, it’s tough politically to be opposed in election by those groups – although Gill won re-election last year.
HB233 says a three-judge panel shall call a grand jury for “good cause.”
It says that the chief judge in each judicial district shall impanel a three-judge group to hear any official complaint by a citizen, and by a majority vote (or two votes if the third judge isn’t available), a grand jury will be called if the testimony proves actionable.
The process in HB233 would likely mean more hearings by three-judge panels, and likely more grand juries being seated – but that is not necessarily a bad thing, believes Nelson, especially in cases of official misconduct by law officers and elected and appointed government officials.
Under HB233 all of the three-judge-impanelling and hearing of testimony would happen quickly, and not every three years as current grand jury action dictates.
