The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-01

WateFDuFy OH tne opening gets his authority only from the order of the Court. And what the Court may do through it's officer it certainly may do itself. It is obviously the intent of the statute that the Court itself shall have the responsibility for the selec- ton of the members of t!le grand jury and it, therefore cannot be ground for abatement of this action that the grand jury was selected by the Court rather than by the sheriff.
 Co Another claimed ground for abatement alleged in some of the pleas is that the members of the grand jury were not selected from the jury list. The answer to that is that grand jurors in this state never have been selected from the jury list which is made up only for purposes of drawing petit juries therefrom, and there is no possible reason why they should be.
 (d) It Is further alleged that some members of the grand jury were not freeholders. The statute (Gen. St. Rev. 1880, Sec. 643O es- tablishes the qualifications for members of the grand jury. The only qualification is that the juror be an elector. Accordingly 1t Is not required that he be free- holder.
 (e) Coming now to the pro- ceedings in the grand jury room, all of the pleas in abatement as- sign as one ground for abatement, in one form or another, that the special states attorney, his two assistants and stenographer were present at the sessions of the grand jury at which evidence was taken thereby violating the secrecy of the grand jury pro- ceedings and to the prejudice of the accused. It is not alleged that any of these persons were present during the deliberations and vot- ing of the grand jury.
 Not Controlling
 It is true that the directions to the grand jury approved by the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Errors in November 1915 and reported in Lunos Case, Conn. 428, contained the statement You will admit no counsel on the part of the state" It has been held, however, that the rules in Luno's case are merely directory and are not necessarily controlling. State Hemlin, 47 Conn.,, 95, 104. More over it is to be borne in mind that they were laid down as ap- plying to such grand juries as would be called upon to decide whether a true bill should be re- turned charging crime punish able by death or life imprison- ment. The Constitution requires action by a grand jury before man can be put in such extreme jeopardy. The constitutional pro- vision is for the protection of ac- cused or suspected persons and, that being the purpose, with re- spect to grand juries acting per force of the constitutional pro- vision, it is apparent that 1t would further that purpose to keep the grand jury free from the influ- ence of the attorney for the state. Where, as in the present case, the grand jury is not one which is required by the Constitution, its purpose is not for the protec- ton of persons who might be un- justly suspected but primarily for the ferreting out and investiga- ton of crimes, the same reason for the exclusion of the attorney for the state does not exist.
 At common law the prosecutor was usually present which a grand jury was taking testimony and in jurisdiction other than Connecticut 1t Is now common practice for the attorney for the state and his assistants to be present and examine witnesses. 28 c. J. page BOP. In many inves- tigations, and apparently the present case was one, 1t is eSsen- tial to the efficient performance of the grand jury's function that they have the assistance of the attorney for the State in bring ing out the testimony of the var ious witnesses who appear. It is not to be presumed that a states attorney in this State will take unfair advantage of his position in the grand jury room. The dan ger of that is very slight and the consideration that 1t may exist is overwhelmed by the consideration that the states attorneys pres ence Is practically necessary for the efficient working of the grand jury. State Lung, 106 Conn. 70l.
 Secrecy Essential
 So far as secrecy is concerned, 1t Is essential that the results of a grand jury investigation such as the present one must be reported to the prosecutor anyway. Mo- Carthy V Clancy, 110 Conn. 482, 5O7. Accordingly there can be no harm in the prosecutor and his assistants hearing the evidence as 1t goes in before the grand jury.
 In the same way with reference to the stenographer. His presence N necessary if the investigation carried on by the grand jury is to be efficiently done and and the secrecy of the proceedings so far as he is concerned is protected