Breonna Taylor Deserved Justice. Daniel Cameron Prevented It.
By: Eliana Fleischer
Tags: Police Brutality, BlackLivesMatter, Racial Justice, Prosecutor, Breonna Taylor

It’s been 285 days since Breonna Taylor was shot and killed in her own home. Even after masses of people marched on the streets shouting her name, a grand jury convened in September found that the three police officers who entered her home and shot more than 25 times should not be charged with any crime for killing her. (The only indictment was against one officer for “wantonly” shooting into neighboring apartments.) After the grand jury decision, three jurors spoke out publicly to say they that the grand jury process was unfair, they never had the option to indict the officers for homicide. One person has been repeatedly blamed for this: Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

Prosecutors are the most powerful people in the criminal justice system. Even more than a judge or a jury, prosecutors have the most control over the result of cases, and by extension, the future of an accused person. State Attorney Generals, like Daniel Cameron, are the head prosecutors in each state and therefore carry enormous power. With the power to decide whom to charge, what to charge, the terms of plea bargains, and more, prosecutors are “the de facto law after an arrest.” There are many informative resources to learn more about just how much control prosecutors have over the legal system including this guide, this book, this video, and the first chapter of this thesis.

One particular aspect of the legal process that prosecutors control is the grand jury. Grand juries are convened to decide whether to indict an accused person — that is, whether to charge them with a crime. In Kentucky, if nine of the twelve people who sit on a grand jury believe there is probable cause that the person committed a crime, the case will move to a trial. Unlike in trials, grand juries have no judges or lawyers for the defense. Only the prosecutor is allowed to present evidence and act as the legal advisor to the citizens on the grand jury. There are very few rules regarding what evidence prosecutors can choose to show to the members of the grand jury: prosecutors can present evidence that would not be admissible in court and they have no requirement to include evidence that would show the accused person is actually innocent. Essentially, prosecutors can show as much or as little evidence as they want and explain the law however they choose, with no judge or defense attorney to contract them.

When it comes to cases in which police officers are accused of a crime, grand juries almost always decide not to vote for an indictment. Prosecutors, who work closely with police departments and frequently benefit from their endorsement, are more lenient on police officers in grand jury proceedings. After Michael Brown was killed by a police officer, the prosecutor went so far as to advocate for the accused officer in the grand jury proceeding. With all the power that prosecutors have over grand juries, it is well known in the legal system that grand juries merely act as proxies for the opinion of prosecutors.

In particularly public cases, such as when unarmed African American citizens are killed by police officers, prosecutors can use grand juries to hide their intentions. One legal scholar wrote that prosecutors use grand juries to “pass the buck:” when they do not want to charge a police officer but are aware that this decision will be publicly criticized, they convene a grand jury to make the decision for them. After Eric Garner and Michael Brown were killed by police officers, prosecutors in New York and St. Louis used grand juries to avoid taking responsibility for not prosecuting the officers who killed them.

All signs point to the fact that Attorney General Daniel Cameron acted the same way, using the grand jury to escape public criticism for failing to charge the officers who killed Breonna Taylor. It should not come as a surprise that three grand jurors have spoken out publicly, explaining that the grand jury “wasn’t allowed to consider additional charges because prosecutors told them the use of force was justified.” One grand juror said, “I felt like he was trying to throw the blame on somebody else.” It’s no wonder that Cameron has filed a motion in court to keep the grand jurors from speaking publicly about the case.

In 43 states, including Kentucky, the Attorney General is an elected position. Cameron was elected in 2019 and can run for a second term in 2023. That might be simply a starting point for him — some say that AG could instead stand for “aspiring governor” because so many Attorneys General later run for higher office. (Of course, the most visible example of this trend is Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, the former Attorney General of California.) Breonna Taylor didn’t get justice, and her name may fade from the news, but the choices that Daniel Cameron made in prosecuting her killers should not be forgotten. Next time his name appears on a ballot, remember Breonna Taylor.