Members of the Hamilton County Grand Jury said in a final report that it appears that most crimes in Chattanooga can be traced to a small number of individuals.
The panel that is headed by Jimmy Anderson also said the amount of crime here is shocking.
The panel said, "We were shocked at the extent of crime, particularly gang-related crime, in Chattanooga. Between the judges and presenting officers, we learned that there is extensive gang activity in Chattanooga and that most crimes can be connected back to just a few dozen individuals.
"We were also surprised to find the extent of violence over relatively minor disputes."
The panel also said there should be higher pay for Grand Jury members.
Here is the full report:
Introduction
Like other Grand Juries, the May to August 2021 Grand Jury represents a wide range of diverse individuals. All of us - even those with past or present ties to the law or law enforcement - learned a great deal. It has been an honor and privilege to serve on this Grand Jury.
Mr. Jimmy Anderson was our leader. Assistant District Attorney Jerry Sloan (and the occasional substitute) presented the cases and provided legal guidance when we had questions. We are grateful to Judge Don W. Poole, Judge Barry Steelman, and Judge Greenholtz for taking time out of their busy schedules to talk with the Grand Jury. Their discussions with us were perhaps the highlight of our service. We regretted that due to COVID-19, we were unable to see some of the things prior Grand Jurors have seen, such as the prison.
Learnings
There were many ins and outs of the legal process that we learned along the way. The first thing that surprised many of us was that the Grand Jury decides what cases go to trial and doesn’t make decisions on actual trials.
We were shocked at the extent of crime, particularly gang-related crime, in Chattanooga. Between the judges and presenting officers, we learned that there is extensive gang activity in Chattanooga and that most crimes can be connected back to just a few dozen individuals.
We were also surprised to find the extent of violence over relatively minor disputes. Some of the non-violent cases could be downright funny, but one whimsical DUI case could easily be followed by a sexual assault case. Someone has to hear these cases, but many of us were perturbed by some of the cases involving children and/or sexual violence.
Lastly, we were surprised at how little thought many criminals give to not getting caught. A simple window tint violation could result in a drug bust with a long list of felonies.
While this hardly captures everything we learned, we found that generally learning about the process, charges, and methods of law enforcement was fascinating and informative. Particularly regarding the murder cases presented to us, we were impressed with the work of the detectives and TBI.
Commendations
There was a resounding positive attitude towards Judge Poole’s behavioral health program. As one juror put it:
I knew nothing about the Mental Health Court but am in support of our incarceration facilities NOT being used for people with mental health problems. I feel these people need access to help, and hopefully a path to dealing with their lives on a positive note. This is a value to our society, along with concerned family members.
Judge Poole’s program struck another juror on a personal level, and she explained to us that she has a family member with a severe mental health problem that would benefit from such a program. The same juror also noted that Drug Recovery Program under Judge Greenholtz was also of personal relevance:
I know for a fact it works because I know someone in the program who has used drugs since she was 14 and she is 45 now. This is the longest she has been clean and is working to get back custody of her toddler. She has hope.
The general sentiment towards the judges was positive. Some of the jurors sat in on trials and remarked at the respect and dignity extended by the judges, even to those who pled guilty to a crime. This above almost all else demonstrates the integrity of the judges that preside over our criminal courts.
Due to recent events, the public attitude towards police officers is relatively negative. Serving on the Grand Jury not only humanized the officers, but also allowed us to see their degree of professionalism and willingness to serve our community. As one juror put it: “The law officers get such a bad rap, but the ones that presented cases to us were nothing but professional and knew the law.” We are appreciative of their service and the job they do every day.
Recommendations
For the drafting of this statement, three prior reports ranging from 2013 to 2019 were reviewed as examples of what we might put in this document. As someone noted, “They’re all pretty much the same.”
We have many recommendations, but they are not so different from prior recommendations. Perhaps the most significant change that needs to occur is that our voices are heard.
1. It is very difficult to hear how valuable our service is to the judicial process, yet our actual value is clear. We’re worth $13 a day.
With minimal research, many of the jurors observed that Hamilton County’s pay is a pittance compared to other courts in neighboring counties and states. “The pay,” said one juror, “associated with this service makes it a financial burden for many. Therefore, Pay should be increased to at least a living wage for service on the Grand Jury.”
If the court would suggest that our service is valuable, we would like more value assigned to our service.
2. We understand that due to COVID-19 and other setbacks, things are just getting started back up for the Grand Jury. However, witnesses were often few and far between, and were sometimes unprepared or their case was so aged that they did not recall the details. We believe a more robust system for having witnesses present to the Grand Jury, or for someone to present on their behalf, would be a better use of our time and valuable service.
If it was not for Sergeant Bolton, who would often present several cases from other witnesses, we would have had completely empty afternoons. It is our recommendation that someone like Sgt. Bolton from each department or precinct bring several cases to us at a time.
Along those same lines, many witnesses could have been better prepared and/or given more firm direction on what their role was before the Grand Jury.
3. Relatedly, we observed that many cases were years old, and some of them for minor infractions. While we understand there are several factors causing delays, we believe expediency is not only an obligation under due process, but that we would see fewer repeat offenders if they were tried, convicted, and sentenced in a timelier fashion.
Additionally, the officers’ recall was always better with more recent events. We No-Billed at least one charge because the officer simply could not remember why they had charged the individual with a crime.
As one juror said regarding #2 and #3: “During our session, some of the days there were not enough witnesses; we had lot of idle time due to lack of officers to witness…Some of the officers did not have enough evidence; looks like they come unprepared.”
And another juror stated, “Most of the witnesses solely relied on what they wrote down in their report and were unable to provide amplifying information that would have been helpful for Grand Jurors during deliberation.”
One juror suggested that “one person present all cases as much as possible for each department…This would speed up the process and keep the police on the streets or not have them come in as witnesses on their day off.”
4. We understand that because of the booming CBD industry, testing marijuana has become more expensive, and therefore small amounts of marijuana are not prosecuted. It is our recommendation that this be more broadly communicated, as most officers did not seem to know this. At times, it seemed like the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing and this stands as a prime example.
We also strongly feel that as state governments relax marijuana laws, that additional parameters should be considered as well, such as a per se legal limit similar to the .08 BAC per se for alcohol. It is difficult to True Bill someone for having Delta 9 in their system when the amount is less than the per se amounts in states where marijuana is legal and we are No-Billing the marijuana possession charge.
5. The duration and rhythm to which we are called to Grand Jury is long. We recommend shortening the commitment, but for perhaps a different reason than one might expect. We learned so much from this experience and we think that more people should have exposure to the Grand Jury process as it also gives them other insights into how the system works. We recommend choosing a new grand jury more often in order to give more exposure to this process and our judicial system.
Other Considerations
There are a few items on which the Grand Jury either was not unanimous or sentiments that weren’t as broadly discussed. Each of these points may represent more than one Grand Juror but may or may not be the general consensus of the Grand Jury. Some of the other suggestions are as follows:
1. Spend more time discussing each case to give the defendants due diligence.
2. One judge stated that the United States has the highest levels of incarceration and longest prison sentences. The judge also stated that although the U.S. judicial system isn’t perfect, it’s the best in the world.
At least one juror begged to differ, citing several Scandinavian countries with more esteemed judicial and prison systems. The juror was cynical about private prisons, unconscious bias towards people of color (particularly black men), and the criminalization of poverty in the U.S. They also were disgruntled with the amount of prison sentences due to drugs they felt should be legalized or have more relaxed sentences.
3. There were mixed feelings about COVID-19 protocols. Most agreed that moving to the Court House where we could see our witnesses in-person was helpful, but some demonstrated concern in light of growing COVID-19 cases.
4. Many jurors were concerned regarding repeat offenders and thought they should be incarcerated until trial. The Grand Jury generally understands this may not be doable under current legislation.
Conclusion
Although there are many areas for opportunity, the sentiment towards the experience was overwhelmingly positive. One juror was not only enthusiastic about their experience with the officers, judges, and other staff. They were also complimentary of their fellow jurors, which seems to reflect the overall sentiment of the Grand Jury.
Lastly, I was most impressed with my fellow jurors. They were all passionate about each case. Though some were young they weren’t shy about jumping in with their conclusions. I think we “seasoned” jurors are leaving our county in capable hands with these trailblazers. You’re going to see good things out of these women and men.
The Grand Jury would once again like to thank Hamilton County Courts for this privilege and opportunity, even if we feel that the monetary value of our service should reflect our value as described by the judges and other court officials.
We are impressed by the integrity of the judges and officers and commend them on the way they appear to treat alleged and convicted criminals. We do wish such treatment came in a timelier manner and hope that the courts will deem it worth their time to create a more robust and efficient process for moving cases through the Grand Jury. We also hope that more civilians will get to experience what we experienced.