The Grand Jury vs. The 'Regular' Jury
[Tom Sneddon vs. Michael Jackson Revisited]

April 2004
by Debra Opri - Attorney and Legal Analyst

An interesting game of chess is underway this week in Santa Barbara, California. It seems the District Attorney's, Tom Sneddon's, eleventh hour move away from a much 'publicized' and expensive preliminary hearing to a closed door, and very much private and secretive, grand jury hearing, wherein a panel of 'Santa Barbara County' citizens have now determined Michael Jackson will be charged and bound over for trial was a back door plunge into dark waters for Michael and clear sailing... right now.... for Mr. Sneddon. In the game of chess, it was a strong and decisive challenge to the defense team, who could only sit and watch the chess board, and, perhaps, look for a life raft of swift public relations responses in order to climb out of those dark waters.

For those of you who don't know, the difference of the grand jury versus the preliminary hearing proceedings differ in really only one respect: whereas the grand jury meets in private with a presentation of the evidence with no cross examination of the witnesses or evidence, the preliminary hearing is a mini trial in which witnesses and evidence are challenged by the defense in hopes of creating a clear message that the evidence and witnesses are weak and that a jury would more than likely not convict at time of trial. While singular, the difference is profound, since Mr. Jackson's lack of due process, which is his constitutional right at time of trial, at this level is emblazoned throughout the corridors of the grand jury deliberations.

In the history of jurisprudence, the makeup of the grand jury was similar to that of the jury - both enabled by the defendant's "peers." These are Mr. Jackson's fellow citizens, who - over the course of two weeks - were charged with the duty of weighing and determining the strength of the evidence, without challenge. These folks, while clearly not savvy legal minds who can be held to a higher legal understanding of what they are being asked to weigh and rule upon, are simply put, citizen sheep who are guided along and prodded to absorb and respond with an indictment, if for no other reason than there was no evidence to the contrary.

While weighing Mr. Jackson's guilt rather than his innocence, may be the limitation to their duties, consider why then, the grand jury exists. Is it not to further the purpose of the People? In this instance, the People as the Prosecution, rather than the people who are his peers, his personal jury, something he must wait for until trial.

Is this the true makings of this country's jurisprudence? Is it such that due process is not afforded until the final round, that final move on the chess board, when to avoid a check mate, the defendant must truly understand the pieces and the moves prior to even starting the game?

What a thought. To shape and mold our right to a fair trial like a game of chess.

As a lawyer, I respect and support, as is my duty, the rule of law, which in this instance, includes the procedures that exist today in this country, in the State of California, in that Santa Barbara courtroom. As a citizen, I question the powers of individuals to use these procedures perhaps ever so selfishly and ruthlessly to challenge the right of a fair trial and which start with a grand jury proceeding as a choice over a preliminary hearing - a choice that rests with the People's attorney - the District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, a man so well known as having an ax to grind for a long time against the defendant, Michael Jackson. Conflict? Manipulation? Or just good lawyering?

Why don't you decide.

From the courtroom to your living room, this has been another edition of THE OPRI OPINION.