Title: In the Matter of the Grand Jury Appearance Request by Larry S. Loigman,Esq.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Larry S. Loigman, a Monmouth County lawyer, professes to have information bearing on the legality of a state-run program intended to deter underage drinking, called Cops in Shops. In a February 18, 2002 letter he forwarded to the Monmouth County Grand Jury, a copy of which he sent to Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, Loigman claimed to have information from a client concerning financial irregularities in the administration of the Cops in Shops program in Middletown Township. (the program is a federally-funded project that attempts to reduce the problem of underage alcohol consumption by stationing plainclothes police officers outside of licensed establishments.) In his letter, Loigman alleged that he had attempted to communicate his concerns to the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control and requested that an investigation be conducted, but that the Director refused to do so. Therefore, Loigman offered to appear directly before the grand jury to provide detailed information. Loigman received no response to his letter, so six weeks later, he again wrote to the members of the grand jury, inquiring whether they intended to address the situation. Judge Lawson replied to the letter, stating that it was inappropriate for Loigman to be communicating directly with the grand jury. He suggested instead that Loigman direct his concerns to the Monmouth County Prosecutor or to the Attorney General, who would then determine whether to present the matter to a county or state grand jury. Instead, one year later, Loigman wrote to Judge Lawson requesting permission to appear before the grand jury with regard to the same matter. Judge Lawson informed Loigman that his position had not changed and again advised him to communicate with the Prosecutor or the Attorney General, noting specifically that he did not possess law enforcement powers and could not undertake the role of sifting through countless claims by citizens who believe that illegal conduct is taking place. Instead, Loigman, filed a verified petition requesting that Judge Lawson affirm that Loigman had a right, duty and obligation to inform the Grand Jury about the occurrence of wrongdoing within its jurisdiction . Loigman also sought an order requiring the clerk of the grand jury to place before the grand jury his earlier letters and to issue a subpoena for Loigman s appearance before that body. Judge Lawson denied that application, finding no case or law giving Loigman the authority to send information to the Grand Jury. He further declined to promulgate a rule that would open the floodgates to countless requests to appear before the grand jury. In a reported opinion, the Appellate Division reversed and declared that citizens have a right of direct access to the grand jury, subject to judicial screening. The panel noted that no New Jersey court had squarely dealt with this issue before and relied in large part on the rulings of other jurisdictions that allowed citizen access to the grand jury. Emphasizing the important role the grand jury has played as an independent investigative body, the panel found as untenable the State s contention that the grand jury should be prevented from receiving communications from private individuals seeking to bring wrongful activity to its attention. Thus, the panel concluded that any direct citizen submission should be made available to the assignment judge by the grand jury clerk when it is received for the judge s determination as to whether he or she should instruct the grand jury on the matter as he or she deems appropriate. The Supreme Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD : A private person does not have the right to present an allegation or evidence of a crime to a grand jury. 1. The grand jury (charging) process is a fundamental protection that has been embedded in our law for more than two centuries. It remains a bulwark against hasty and ill-conceived prosecutions and continues to lend legitimacy to our system of justice by infusing it with a democratic ethos. The indictment requirement of the Constitution does not confer an unbridled right of access, allowing any person to make an accusation or present evidence to the grand jury. (pp. 6-7) 2. In New Jersey, public prosecutors superseded private prosecutors long before the Revolution and in the modern era, it has been the responsibility of the public prosecutor to investigate and prosecute serious crimes, and it has been the role of the victim or concerned citizen to report knowledge of criminal activities to the proper law enforcement authorities. (pp. 7-8) 3. New Jersey Courts have not treated a citizen s right to directly ask a grand jury to investigate a matter as unremarkable. But even if there were support for direct grand jury access by private citizens in our distant common law, such a practice would have to serve a legitimate purpose in our contemporary criminal justice system. (pp. 9-10) 4. To say that the grand jury has far-reaching powers does not imply that any person with a grievance, allegation, or even knowledge of criminal conduct can bypass the appropriate channels for reporting criminal activity and go before that body. Rather, by statute, the state s twenty-one county prosecutors and the Attorney General are exclusively charged with prosecuting the criminal business of the State. Those statutes make no provision for citizen presentations to the grand jury. (pp. 10-13) 5. Our court rules do not contemplate private citizens prosecuting or presenting matters directly to the grand jury. (p. 13) 6. There is no reason to believe that the hundreds of well-trained (some career) and experienced prosecutors throughout the state cannot be trusted to bring before the grand jury meritorious complaints of potential criminal conduct and to weed out frivolous allegations unworthy of prosecution. Moreover, the law enforcement and investigative agencies involved have overlapping jurisdiction, which increases the likelihood that one or more of them will have an interest in pursuing a legitimate claim of wrongdoing. (pp. 14-15) 7. The current procedure, which requires complaint to a prosecutor, not only provides for judicial oversight, but also guards against prosecutions not supported by probable cause and against improper prosecutorial conduct. (pp. 15-17) 8. The procedure suggested by the Appellate Division would require an intolerable level of intrusion by the judiciary into an executive function the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in deciding not to pursue an investigation or press a charge. Such an erosion of the prosecutor s screening authority would be disruptive of the orderly and fair disposition of cases and increase the likelihood that wrongful indictments will be returned. (pp. 17-19) 9. On this record, and in light of the applicable statutes, court rules, case law, and policy rationale, the Court is unwilling to recognize a common law right of access to the grand jury by private citizens. (pp. 19-20) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECC H IA, ZAZZALI, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN s opinion. JURY APPEARANCE REQUEST BY LARRY S. LOIGMAN, ESQ. Argued February 15, 2005 Decided April 11, 2005 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 370 N.J. Super. 406 (2004). Boris Moczula, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant, Attorney General of New Jersey (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney; H. John Witman III, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). Larry S. Loigman argued the cause respondent, pro se. Robert D. Bernardi, Assistant Burlington County Prosecutor, argued the cause for amicus curiae, County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (Thomas F. Kelaher, Ocean County Prosecutor, President, attorney; Mary R. Juliano, Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor, on the brief). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, Larry S. Loigman, a Monmouth County lawyer, professes to have information bearing on the legality of a state-run program intended to deter underage drinking. He has not reported any allegation of criminal wrongdoing to a state or federal law enforcement agency in New Jersey. Instead, he argues that he has a common law right to present his claims directly to a grand jury for investigation. The Monmouth County Assignment Judge denied Loigman s application for direct access to the grand jury. The Appellate Division ruled in Loigman s favor, holding that a citizen has a right to present his claims to the grand jury, provided that the Assignment Judge determines that the allegation and supporting information merit grand jury consideration. We granted certification and now reverse. Since the Cops in Shops money is funneled through the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, I contacted the Director of the ABC and requested that an investigation be conducted. However, the ABC has refused to investigate . . . . If the Grand Jury is interested in addressing this situation, both my client and I would be available at your convenience to provide detailed information. Six weeks later, having received no response to his letter, Loigman wrote again to the members of the grand jury, inquiring whether they intend[ed] to address this situation or, as with so much of the public official corruption in this State, it will remain uninvestigated. Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, who was copied on those letters, replied to Loigman. Judge Lawson stated that it was inappropriate for [Loigman] to be communicating with the Grand Jury and suggested that he direct [his] concerns to the Monmouth County Prosecutor or the Attorney General, who would then determine whether to present the matter to a county or State grand jury. A year later, Loigman still had not filed a report with a state or federal law enforcement agency concerning Cops in Shops. Nevertheless, in March 2003, Loigman wrote to Judge Lawson requesting permission to appear before the grand jury with regard to that matter. Judge Lawson responded that his position had not changed and again advised Loigman to contact the Monmouth County Prosecutor s Office or Attorney General s Office. Judge Lawson noted that although he had supervisory control over the grand jury, he did not possess law enforcement powers and could not undertake the role of sifting through countless claims by citizens who believe that illegal conduct is taking place. Judge Lawson deferred to the prosecutor whose statutory authority, experience, and investigative resources placed him in the best position to determine whether any evidence of criminality warranted a presentation to a grand jury. Loigman then filed a verified petition requesting that Judge Lawson affirm that Loigman had a right, duty and obligation to inform the Grand Jury about the occurrence of wrongdoing within its jurisdiction . . . . Loigman also sought an order requiring the grand jury clerk to place before the grand jury his earlier letters and to issue a subpoena for Loigman s appearance before that body. Judge Lawson denied the application because there was simply no case or law giving Loigman the authority to send information to the Grand Jury. Judge Lawson declined to promulgate a rule that would open the floodgates to countless requests to appear before a grand jury. The Appellate Division reversed and declared that citizens have a right of direct access to the grand jury, subject to judicial screening. In re Grand Jury Appearance Request by Larry S. Loigman, Esq., 370 N.J. Super. 406, 407-08, 413 (App. Div. 2004). The panel noted that no New Jersey court had squarely dealt with this issue before, and relied in large part on the rulings of other jurisdictions that allowed citizen access to the grand jury. See id. at 409-12. With reference to this state s case law, the panel emphasized the important role the grand jury has played as an independent investigative body possessed of extraordinary powers and responsibility to direct[] its own efforts. Id. at 411 (quoting State v. Doliner, 96 N.J. 236, 249 (1984)). In that light, the panel found untenable [the State s] contention that the grand jury should be prevented from receiving communications from private individuals who seek to bring to its attention wrongful activity within its jurisdiction. Id. at 411-12. The panel concluded that any citizen submission directly to the grand jury should be made available to the [assignment] judge by the grand jury clerk when it is received. The judge may then determine whether he or she should instruct the jury on the matter. In this case, since the communication has already been intercepted, the Assignment Judge shall submit it to the grand jury with such instructions as he deems appropriate. [Id. at 413.] We granted the State s petition for certification, In re Grand Jury Appearance Request by Larry S. Loigman, Esq., 182 N.J. 140 (2004), and now reverse. Such a practice is not observed here. We have public prosecutors in every county. [McBlain, supra, 65 N.J.L. at 636 (citations omitted).] In New Jersey, public prosecutors superseded private prosecutors long before the Revolution, and by 1822 the name of a prosecutor was listed in every county. Winne, supra, 12 N.J. at 165. Our courts have not recognized private prosecutions for serious criminal charges since at least 1901. See footnote 1 McBlain, supra, 65 N.J.L. at 636. In the modern era, it has been the responsibility of the public prosecutor to investigate and prosecute serious crimes, and it has been the role of the victim or concerned citizen to report knowledge of criminal activities to the proper law enforcement authorities. Shim v. Kikkoman Int l Corp., 509 F. Supp. 736, 739-40 (D.N.J.), aff d, 673 F.2d 1304 (3d Cir. 1981) (citing McBlain, supra). We cannot agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Division in this case that, in recent times, New Jersey courts have treated a citizen s right to directly ask a grand jury to investigate a matter as unremarkable. Loigman, supra, 370 N.J. Super. at 409. The cases cited by the Appellate Division, O Regan v. Schermerhorn, 25 N.J. Misc. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1946), and In re Monmouth County Grand Jury, 24 N.J. 318 (1957), do not support that proposition. In O Regan, supra, a libel case against a grand jury brought by two former prosecutors, the court discoursed generally on the grand jury s authority. 25 N.J. Misc. at 5-6, 23. The court noted that the grand jury was not required to have a formal charge before it to begin an inquiry, but could of its own initiative investigate and diligently inquire into all alleged offenses against the criminal law regardless of how the information on which it acts is brought to its attention. Id. at 23. That language addressing the expansive powers of the grand jury cannot be read to confer a right of grand jury access to private persons seeking to press a case or make a charge. In Monmouth County Grand Jury, supra, a grand jury returned two presentments, one of which concerned the sale of obscene material in Monmouth County. 24 N.J. at 320. In the course of deciding whether the Assignment Judge properly quashed the presentments, the Court noted that complaints were received from a citizens group by the grand jury. Id. at 321. The court did not identify how those complaints made their way to the grand jury. We do know, however, that the prosecutor submitted evidence to the grand jury. Ibid. The Court never held not even obliquely that a private citizens group could directly present its complaints to the grand jury. Even if we were to find support for direct grand jury access by private citizens in our distant common law, we still would have to determine whether such a practice serves a legitimate purpose in our contemporary criminal justice system. The dead hand of the past should not perpetuate a rule whose rationale no longer pertains to present-day circumstances. We therefore must examine whether our current statutes and court rules governing grand jury practice are inconsistent with the principle of access now resurrected by the Appellate Division. IN THE MATTER OF THE GRAND JURY APPEARANCE REQUEST BY LARRY S. LOIGMAN, ESQ. DECIDED April 11, 2005 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Albin CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY