OPENING A GRAND JURY PROBE IS UNFAIR TO POLICE OFFICERS

Fundamental to a free society is having trust in law enforcement. No
one understands this more than the police officers who work a beat
every day. We know that to do our jobs effectively, we need to have
the trust and cooperation of the citizens we serve.

We believe that the public has a right to know all of the facts when
it comes to an officer-involved shooting. We don't agree, however, on
how that result is achieved. We also don't agree that the Santa Clara
County District Attorney and the Mercury News should favor changing
the rules of the grand jury process whenever it is politically expedient.

The San Jose Police Officers' Association strongly believes that the
integrity of the process of investigating officer-involved shootings
must be maintained. Not only is the officer's career at stake, but
also that officer's life and freedom. Most people do not know that the
investigation of the officer that follows a shooting is a criminal
investigation led by the district attorney's office.

It is the district attorney, after completing a thorough and rigorous
investigation, who must decide whether to file charges against an officer.

Sometimes, the DA may convene a grand jury to make that decision for
him. At no time, however, should that process be compromised by
injecting politics and a media spotlight into the process that will
potentially affect the outcome. Opening the grand jury process does
just that.

Will a public grand jury allow us to know if the officer was at fault?
No. There is widespread confusion as to the purpose of the grand jury.
It is not to find innocence or guilt. It is simply to determine if
evidence exists to file criminal charges against someone. That's it.
The grand jury will not tell you if the officer is guilty, if proper
procedures were followed or if the shooting victim was to blame. It
simply will tell you if there is enough evidence to move on to trial,
the next step in the criminal justice process.

Will a public grand jury bring forward all of the facts? No. One of
the main problems with opening the grand jury process to the public is
the chilling effect it has on the testimony of potential witnesses.
This includes family members of the shooting victim who in the past
have been less than willing to testify against their loved ones openly
in public.

How can we be sure the public is represented if the process remains
closed? The grand jury is the public. It is 12 individuals who have
sworn to uphold the law and to base their decisions on facts and
evidence. Grand jury members are not law enforcement officers; they
are average citizens who take their duties seriously.

What do we accomplish by opening up the grand jury? The grand jury can
decide to not indict, as it wisely did in the Chad Marshall case
involving the shooting death of Bich Cau Thi Tran. Did that quiet
community concern with the process? No.

How then can we ensure the public is kept informed when these tragic
events happen? Once the DA decides to indict or not indict, he can
make his investigation public. Likewise, once the grand jury has
completed its hearing and made a decision, the DA can petition the
court to release the grand jury testimony. Both achieve the goal of
making the information public, at the same time preventing outside
influence from affecting the process.

As an organization, the San Jose Police Officers' Association is
committed to protecting the individual rights of law enforcement
officers. We object strongly to the notion that because we serve the
public, we are entitled to a less fair system when it comes to
charging law enforcement officers with a crime.