Members of the Hamilton County Regular Grand Jury said they had varying opinions on the state's position of often no billing marijuana cases.
Grand jurors said they were told "that the cost of testing the drugs was high, and it wasn’t worth testing marijuana when other drugs and drug charges were present. There was also some speculation that the laws regarding marijuana in Tennessee may change soon."
The panel headed by Jimmy Anderson said, "Many felt that there wasn’t much opportunity to disagree with the Assistant District Attorney’s strong recommendation. These cases put jurors in an awkward position of dropping charges rightfully brought by officers. The practice seems to shift accountability for dropping the appropriate charges from law enforcement and the DA to the non-elected Grand Jury. Other jurors disagreed and felt that many of the marijuana charges were, in fact, a waste of time and should be 'no billed.' ”
The Hamilton County Regular Grand Jury completed its Fall Term and returned 222 true bills, 43 presentments, and 20 no bills.
The Grand Jurors reported working well together and had some suggestions for improving the system, including a more racially diverse panel, a table of charges to reference, and having a law enforcement officer available to answer questions.
The Grand Jurors said they respected and appreciated the judges, assistant district attorney and law enforcement that spoke with them and answered their questions.
Here is the report of the Regular Grand Jury:
Introduction:
The Grand Jury was made up of men and women from all over Hamilton County. We had a mix of ages, careers, economic strata, and backgrounds. We worked well together, and became more comfortable discussing tough issues as the term progressed. During the term, 285 cases were presented to the Regular Grand Jury. The Grand Jury returned 222 true bills, 43 presentments, and 20 no bills.
The grand jurors appreciated the expertise and insights of Jerry Sloan, the assistant district attorney. He patiently answered our questions and helped us understand the law. Jimmy Anderson, the Grand Jury foreman, helped us get to know each other and ably shepherded us through the process. We truly appreciate Don Ledford, who kept things moving along and cheered us up with his wonderful sense of humor. It was also very helpful that one of the jurors was a law enforcement officer. His experience and expertise helped other jurors make sense of testimony and issues.
The jurors had a positive experience overall. Many commented that they learned a lot about the judicial system, law enforcement, and our community through the process of serving. There were, of course, varying reactions to the work of the Grand Jury. Below are a few observations on the experience of serving:
Comments from Grand Jurors:
"I have a better understanding of how the courts system and its processes work. We saw a lot of the same names coming through the system over and over.”
“The court system administration is not effectively resourced and appears to be unduly influenced by the ability of the prison system to effectively accomplish the public's expectations for addressing criminal behavior.”
“I watched the reactions of the other jurors and listened to the comments from everyone when we heard the more serious cases. I heard comments of shock and disbelief on a few cases that were common occurrences for someone in law enforcement. I believe a member of law enforcement should serve on every Grand Jury.”
“It was discouraging that we were an all white jury. We had one black alternate who was with us, but only for a few days. For a county as diverse as Hamilton County is, the jury did not represent the racial makeup of the community.”
“I learned a lot about how long the ‘speedy’ process is. With hearing cases from as far back as 2019, it seems that the time frame for the ‘right to a speedy’ trial can be a slow and drawn out process. COVID did play a significant part to this but I would hope that a case from early 2019 would have at least been heard before the shut down. If two years for a case to be heard by the grand jury is normal, there is an extreme efficiency issue.”
“I understand the point of the grand jury, I just don’t feel it’s absolutely necessary. The majority of the time it just felt like we were there to say yes because it was part of the process. If someone has had charges brought against them and ask for a jury trial in general sessions court the sessions court judge should have the authority to decide if there’s enough probable cause for a regular jury to deliberate on. Everything that came to us we were able to see pretty clearly and quickly that there was probable cause. I just think this part of the process isn’t truly necessary.”
Guest Speakers
There were several guest speakers who addressed the grand jury. Judge Poole addressed us and charged us with our duty on the first day, then came back another time to talk to us about the courts. He specifically addressed the Mental Health Court program, which we had the option to observe. Judge Steelman came and talked about several aspects of the criminal justice system.
Sheriff Hammond told us about the recent changes at the Silverdale Jail and other programs that have been initiated lately. Judge Greenholtz told us about the Drug Court and emphasized that the first political principle is liberty. Several jurors visited the Drug Court and were very impressed with the great care taken by Judge Greenholtz for the participants. All the speakers provided helpful information and answered our questions.
Jurors were very impressed with the judges, and appreciated the opportunity to learn from them. We were also impressed with the Drug Court and Mental Health and Drug Court programs, and noted that many citizens do not know these programs exist in Hamilton County.
Testimony & Evidence:
Testimony was presented by officers from a variety of law enforcement agencies. They were professional and willing to answer questions to help us understand. It is also noted that for many night shift officers, the grand jury hours are in the middle of their normal sleeping time. We appreciate them taking the time to testify.
In many cases, the arresting officer was not the person reading the affidavit. Many jurors felt that this was not a good practice. When jurors had questions, the arresting officer wasn’t always there to provide the information. It is helpful when the officer in the jury room has knowledge of the case and can clarify when questions arise. However, some jurors felt that it was fine for others to read the testimony since it seemed to make more efficient use of time, both for the jurors and for the defendants awaiting trial.
There is a lot of information given by the assistant district attorney when he “calls out” the case. Jurors take notes as they listen and try to make sense of the evidence. It would be helpful to have a template for recording the information. Some jurors felt that the gender, address, and date of birth be left out of the presentation of the case since that information is not relevant to the determination of probable cause.
Some of the evidence was understandably disturbing. Photos of injured children, detailed descriptions of sexual assault, etc. In one case, we watched graphic video evidence of a shooting where a juvenile with an automatic rifle shot at other juveniles. It would be helpful if there was some type of debriefing or counseling available to jurors.
Laws & Sentencing:
It is important for the Grand Jury to be given a clear understanding of the law. Since Grand Jurors aren’t lawyers, we relied heavily on the Assistant District Attorney to help us understand the cases. In many cases, specifically possession of marijuana cases, it was recommended to us that we “no bill” the charges. It was explained that the cost of testing the drugs was high, and it wasn’t worth testing marijuana when other drugs and drug charges were present. There was also some speculation that the laws regarding marijuana in Tennessee may change soon.
The jurors had differing opinions on this matter. Many felt that there wasn’t much opportunity to disagree with the Assistant District Attorney’s strong recommendation. These cases put jurors in an awkward position of dropping charges rightfully brought by officers. The practice seems to shift accountability for dropping the appropriate charges from law enforcement and the DA to the non-elected Grand Jury. Other jurors disagreed and felt that many of the marijuana charges were, in fact, a waste of time and should be “no billed.”
Scheduling, Communications, & Logistics:
The Grand Jury meets two days every other week. Many of the jurors were concerned with the amount of time wasted during those two days waiting to see if witnesses will appear. The scheduling of witnesses needs to be mandatory in order to better utilize the jurors’ time. Officers’ time would also be more respected if they had a more specific time to testify. Many of them show up at nine, only to wait a long time to be heard. An online tool such as Sign Up Genius could easily connect officers with a more precise time, and would increase the efficiency of the Grand Jury.
Sound was sometimes an issue in the jury room. Jurors agreed to wear masks as a COVID precaution, but witnesses were invited to remove their mask so we could clearly hear them. It was still hard to hear at times. Utilizing the sound system in the jury room for witness testimony would help with this issue, as well as improve the ability of the jurors and court officials to hear each other properly.
Mr. Anderson communicated important dates and details to the Regular Grand Jury very well. However, there was some confusion about dates after the calendar was adjusted. Better communication during the original notification process would help. Everyone who is called is told that the commitment is every other Monday and Tuesday for the next four months, but the exact dates are not given. If all the dates for both juries were communicated before the day we report, jurors would be better able to commit to the regular or concurrent jury.
There is a lot of paperwork involved in these cases. There is always some human error. Additional resources are needed to reduce the errors and disorganization in case paperwork due to personnel changes. We also recommend discontinuing the practice of using a Grand Juror for clerical/notetaking support to ensure that all jurors are able to be fully engaged in the process of evaluating the testimony.
Recommendations:
Based on our experiences and interactions, we make the following recommendations:
Provide desk top name cards for each juror and court officials or distribute seating chart with jurors’ first names.
Create a visual chart of the organization and flow of cases through the court system for distribution to Grand Jurors.
Create a table of charges (felony, misdemeanor etc.) prioritized by consequence for distribution to Grand Jurors.
Provide access to a law enforcement officer to answer questions if there isn’t an officer on the Grand Jury. The officer should be able to give us background and information about the jail and other insights.
Randomly select the entire jury instead of asking for volunteers in order to have a better representation of the racial diversity in Hamilton County.
Allow the Grand Jury to recommend when cases may be suited for Mental Health Court and Drug Court.