Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/but-i-already-know-%C2%ADeverything-there-is-to-know-about-grand-juries/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:27:02+00:00

Document:
Grand jury practice can be a particularly unsexy portion of the prosecutorial practice of law because it generally changes little and nothing usually goes wrong. But what if something does change or something does go wrong? The 84th Texas Legislature passed changes to grand jury practice, and although not terribly common, problems do occur in these proceedings. This article is designed to update practitioners on the most recent changes and give helpful examples of what can go wrong, along with suggestions on how to remedy those issues.
Article 19.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to reflect the elimination of the key-man system in that it now requires that grand jurors be selected at random from the county’s jury wheel. However, this section also allows the judge to adjust the grand jury’s composition if the first 16 people selected at random from the community do not represent a fair cross-section of the population.3 The statute has been amended to allow the judge charged with impaneling the grand jury to “select” grand jurors from a fair cross section of the population.4 The statute previously read that if “14 qualified jurors are found to be present, the court shall proceed to impanel the grand jury.”5 Interestingly, this change would seem to fail to alleviate the concerns of those who opposed the previous key-man system in that it still allows for the impaneling judge’s intervention—most complaints about the key-man system related to the judge’s perceived ability to influence the grand jury process by selecting the commissioners. One can hardly help but wonder if this procedure will someday be subject to the same complaints.
Several issues can and do arise in grand jury practice. What happens when a disqualified person serves on a grand jury? What happens when someone who was originally qualified later on does something to bring her qualifications into question? What happens if a defendant claims that the grand jury that indicted him was composed in a racially discriminatory manner? These are issues that have arisen in the past and for which caselaw provides guidance.
Though some areas of grand jury practice remain unlitigated, others have clear direction from caselaw and recent legislative changes. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance, and have fun making new law if you get the chance to litigate a grand jury issue.
1 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.01, effective Sept. 1, 2015 (HB 2150, §1).
3 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.26, effective Sept. 1, 2015 (HB 2150, §8).
5 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.26, acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 889, §1, effective Sept. 1, 2003.
6 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.31 adds challenges for insanity, various medical conditions, being a target of a grand jury investigation, etc., effective Sept. 1, 2015 (HB 2150, §10).
7 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.315 enacted effective Sept. 1, 2015 (HB 2150, §11).
8 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 19.08.
9 Caraway v. State, 911 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, no pet.), citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 19.27.
11 See, e.g., Ex parte Covin, 277 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955) (stating, albeit in dicta, that grand juror’s lack of qualifications could be raised by motion to quash); Mullings v. State, 917 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1996, pet. dism’d as improvidently granted) (assuming without deciding that complaint that grand juror was a complainant could be heard by way of pre-trial motion to quash the indictment); Acosta v. State, 640 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, habeas relief granted, jdgm’t vacated on other grounds by 672 S.W.2d 470) (“Challenge to the array may be by a motion to quash the indictment before trial”).
12 Mullings, 917 S.W.2d at 336.
14 Howard v. State, 704 S.W.2d 575, 579 (Tex. App.—1986, no pet.).
16 Espinoza v. State, 604 S.W.2d 908, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
18 Pimentel v. State, 710 S.W.2d 764, 777 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986, pet. ref’d).
19 Evans v. State, 656 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
20 Enriquez v. Procunier, 752 F.2d 11, 115 (5th Cir. 1984).

References: Art. 19
 §1
 Art. 19
 §8
 Art. 19
 §1
 Art. 19
 §10
 Art. 19
 §11
 Art. 19
 v. 
 art. 19
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.