Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/15/248.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:15:18+00:00

Document:
Michael J. Barkett, Jr., for Petitioner.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Marjory Winston Parker, Robert D. Marshall and Kevin M. Corrington, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.
Prior to submission of the matter to the grand jury, petitioner's testimony at a preliminary hearing led the magistrate to dismiss a complaint charging him with the same offenses. The district attorney did not bring this testimony to the attention of the grand jury.
[1a] Petitioner's testimony at the preliminary hearing did tend to "explain away" the charges against him, at least in the magistrate's opinion. Therefore, petitioner contends, the district attorney had an implied duty under section 939.7 to disclose this testimony to the grand jury. The People respond that the district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury unless the jury calls for it.
The People's response is disingenuous. The grand jury cannot be expected to call for evidence of which it is kept ignorant. When a district attorney seeking an indictment is aware of evidence reasonably tending to negate guilt, he is obligated under section 939.7 to inform the grand jury of its nature and existence. Such information having been withheld here, the writ of prohibition must issue.
On 31 July 1973, petitioner agreed to sell 200,000 amphetamine tablets to Mr. Logan, a federal undercover narcotics agent, and Mr. Young, Logan's informant. Petitioner told them the transaction would be consummated through Mr. Sherman because a pending court appearance caused petitioner concern. On three occasions in the preceding five weeks, agent Young had observed petitioner and Sherman in Mexico, negotiating to purchase amphetamine tablets.
On the evening of 7 August 1973, the transaction having been postponed once, Sherman telephoned Logan and Young in their hotel room in Stockton, arranging to meet them there. Twenty minutes later, petitioner drove up to Sherman's house in Lodi and Sherman came out to the car where they talked for five minutes. They then drove to Stockton in separate cars, petitioner leading the way. Sherman went to Logan and Young's room while petitioner circled the vicinity of the hotel for 15 to 20 minutes, finally parking within 200 yards of Sherman's car.
Sherman offered to sell Logan 50,000 amphetamine tablets for $3,000. Objecting that his agreement had been with petitioner, Logan told Sherman he wanted to know with whom he was dealing. Sherman replied that petitioner did not want to be directly involved because he had a prior conviction. When Logan pressed Sherman as to the ownership of the tablets, he replied, "They're borrowed but don't worry. [15 Cal. 3d 252] Me and Ray are partners." When the transaction was completed petitioner and Sherman were arrested.
In March 1973, petitioner was charged with one count of selling restricted dangerous drugs and two counts of possessing such drugs for sale. At a pretrial conference in superior court, petitioner was informed that the district attorney would recommend a county jail sentence in return for cooperation in securing information concerning other narcotics dealers. Petitioner agreed and was told to work with Deputy District Attorney Saiers. When petitioner subsequently balked at appearing as a witness in prosecutions resulting from information he was to supply, Mr. Saiers warned him that he would go to prison unless he cooperated. Pursuant to a bargain struck with Mr. Saiers just before his court appearance on 6 August 1973, petitioner was permitted to plead guilty to one of the possession counts, the other two counts were dismissed, and the probation and sentence hearing was continued until 17 September 1973, to give petitioner more time to "produce."
Petitioner had never been in Mexico with Sherman. He did agree to sell amphetamine tablets to Young and Logan when they met on 31 July 1973, but did so with the intention of informing on them. He did not tell them the transaction would be consummated through Sherman. Petitioner had nothing to do with the transaction on 7 August 1973; he was in the area because he hoped to inform on Sherman.
The People have chosen a poor vehicle for arguing that the district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury unless the jury calls for it. Not only did the district attorney fail to inform the grand jury of petitioner's preliminary hearing testimony, but he also created the false impression that petitioner would refuse to testify if called. At the conclusion of the grand jury hearing, after three other witnesses had testified in the interim, the district attorney recalled the arresting officer and elicited his testimony that, following arrest and advisement of his Miranda rights, petitioner had refused to make a statement upon the advice of counsel. Reference to petitioner's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination was clear misconduct, as the Attorney General concedes. (People v. Miller (1966) 245 Cal. App. 2d 112, 156 [53 Cal. Rptr. 720], disapproved on another ground in People v. Doherty (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 9, 14-15 [59 Cal. Rptr. 857, 429 P.2d 177]; see Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L. Ed. 2d 106, 85 S. Ct. 1229]; People v. Modesto (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 695, 710-711 [59 Cal. Rptr. 124, 427 P.2d 788].) But more importantly, the grand jury's power to order the production of evidence which may "explain away" the charges under consideration was thereby thwarted.
[1b] However, the adversary system does not extend to grand jury proceedings. As has been explained, if the district attorney does not bring exculpatory evidence to the attention of the grand jury, the jury is unlikely to learn of it. We hold, therefore, that when a district attorney seeking an indictment is aware of evidence reasonably tending to negate guilt, he is obligated under section 939.7 to inform the grand jury of its nature and existence, so that the grand jury may exercise its power under the statute to order the evidence produced. Having disposed of this case on statutory grounds, we need not consider petitioner's alternative due process argument. We have considered the People's procedural objections and find them meritless.
McComb, J., Tobriner, J., Sullivan, J., and Burke, J., concurred.
I concur with the result reached by the majority and with the conclusion that the prosecution has a duty under Penal Code section 939.7 to inform the grand jury of the nature and existence of exculpatory evidence.
As I have intimated on another occasion (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 662, 670, fn. 1 [108 Cal. Rptr. 657, 511 P.2d 609], dissenting opn.), it is my belief that prosecution by indictment under the present statutory scheme denies an accused fundamental rights at a critical stage of the criminal process and results in violations of equal protection and due process of law.
It is thus clear that a functional revolution in the grand jury occurred in the six centuries between the Assize of Clarendon and the adoption of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By the time of the latter, the institution had evolved to its purest form: a citizen's tribunal, set resolutely between the state and the individual. Unhappily, the contemporary grand jury no longer serves that historic role and has regressed to little more than a convenient prosecutorial tool. fn. 6 In order to appreciate the change that has taken place since 1791 it is necessary to review the development of the parallel method of accusation: the criminal information.
The reforms Holdsworth spoke of occurred in 1848, when Parliament decreed that defendants at preliminary examinations have the right to counsel, the right to have witnesses examined in their presence, and the right to make statements and present exculpatory witnesses. (11 & 12 Vict., ch. 42.) The enactment of these and further safeguards created the anomalous situation that accusation by information, once the bane of English civil libertarians, became imbued with far more procedural safeguards than were available when prosecution began by indictment.
The conclusion is inescapable that if a preindictment proceeding is a critical stage of the criminal justice process requiring due process safeguards, a fortiori the indictment proceeding itself is a critical stage. Indeed Chief Justice Burger, dissenting in Coleman, pointed out the "anomaly" of requiring counsel at a preliminary hearing when "counsel cannot attend a subsequent grand jury inquiry, even though witnesses, including the person eventually charged, may be interrogated in secret session." (Id., at p. 25 [26 L.Ed.2d at pp. 405-406].) The chief justice openly wondered (ibid.) "how can this be reconciled" with the fact that "at the decidedly more 'critical' grand jury inquiry" there was no assistance of counsel.
The term "anomaly" tends to become overworked when the grand jury's indicting function is under discussion, but one is continually struck by the fact that this proceeding remains untouched by the safeguards which have become firmly attached to points in the criminal process of far less significance. For example, it is now the law that a casual suspect at a lineup has more rights than an accused before a grand jury. (United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 [18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 87 S. Ct. 1926].) Similarly, a parolee charged simply with violation of conditions of his parole has the opportunity to personally appear, cross-examine hostile witnesses, and be conditionally represented by counsel at the revocation hearing (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L. Ed. 2d 484, 92 S. Ct. 2593]; Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778 [36 L. Ed. 2d 656, 93 S.Ct. 1756]), yet none of these protections is accorded to the potential indictee. Indeed, far more safeguards protect prison inmates at disciplinary hearings (Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539 [41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 94 S.Ct. 2963]) and parole rescission hearings (Gee v. Brown (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 571 [122 Cal. Rptr. 231, 536 P.2d 1017]) than are permitted free and presumptively innocent persons before the grand jury.
The traditional counterargument that the grand jury merely inquires into whether there is probable cause to bind the defendant over for trial, thus avoiding any need for due process safeguards, can no longer be considered valid after Coleman, Morrissey and their progeny. As noted, in Coleman the Alabama preliminary hearing determined only whether there was probable cause to present the case to the grand jury -- not even whether there was probable cause to bind the defendant over for trial. [15 Cal. 3d 264] Nevertheless the Supreme Court held that the potential jeopardy to the defendant was significant enough to trigger the demands of due process.
It is therefore manifest that if due process requires these various procedural protections in order to determine probable cause to terminate conditional liberties, equal or greater safeguards must be observed in order to protect the absolute liberty of the prospective indictee. Here again we see the incongruous circumstance of a proceeding which is deemed constitutionally sufficient to indict but is inadequate to serve as a substitute for the prerevocation hearing: either the preliminary hearing or the trial itself may serve as the prerevocation hearing if a parolee charged with a new offense is given notice of the dual purpose of the proceeding (In re Law (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 21 [109 Cal. Rptr. 573, 513 P.2d 621]); but the grand jury proceeding, because of its complete lack of the procedural rights mandated by Morrissey, may not be so substituted (In re Valrie (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 139 [115 Cal. Rptr. 340, 524 P.2d 812]). In short, the present grand jury system does not even rise to the constitutional standards of parole prerevocation hearings.
In Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 69 [77 L. Ed. 158, 170, 53 S. Ct. 55, 84 A.L.R. 527], the Supreme Court declared that a person accused of crime "required the guiding hand of counsel at every stage in the proceedings against him." If this were in fact the law this opinion [15 Cal. 3d 265] would be unnecessary, because it is irrefutable that the grand jury proceeding is a "stage," and indeed a critical stage, of the criminal justice process. Unfortunately, to date courts have been loathe to shine the revealing light of due process analysis into the secret recesses of the grand jury room. Because of this reticence, the state is permitted to subject an individual to the trauma of a felony trial without even cursory consideration of his side of the story. This, I submit, is a patent violation of the due process clauses of the federal and state Constitutions, rivaled only by its equally blatant violation of equal protection of the law.
Moreover, these classifications are not mere economic discriminations to which the rational relation test may be applied, but rather involve such fundamental rights as counsel, confrontation, the right to personally appear, the right to a hearing before a judicial officer, and the right to be free from unwarranted prosecution. These guarantees are expressly or impliedly grounded in both the state and federal Constitutions and must by any test be deemed "fundamental." Accordingly, as Serrano teaches, in order to justify such a selective denial of fundamental guarantees the state must show not only a compelling interest but also that the classifications are necessary to that end.
This court has on a number of occasions supplemented existing criminal or quasi-criminal procedures when the demands of equal protection warranted it. In In re Gary W. (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 296 [96 Cal. Rptr. 1, 486 P.2d 1201], we determined that due process and equal protection required that a youth whose normal discharge date from the Youth Authority was deferred because of the authority's conclusion that he was dangerous to the public (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 1800-1803) was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of "dangerousness." We pointed out [15 Cal. 3d 267] that the Legislature had extended the right to trial by jury to other classes of persons subject to civil commitment and concluded there was no compelling state interest to support a distinction for this class of juveniles.
For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that equal protection requires that all criminal defendants have the same opportunity to prove to a magistrate that there is no probable cause to bind them over for trial. "The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to weed out groundless or unsupported charges of grave offenses, and to relieve the accused of the degradation and the expense of a criminal trial. Many an unjustifiable prosecution is stopped at that point, where the lack of probable cause is clearly disclosed." (Jaffe v. Stone (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 146, 150 [114 P.2d 335, 135 A.L.R. 775].) A proceeding of such significance cannot, consistent with the constitutional mandate of equal protection, be selectively denied.
It may be argued that to afford an indicted defendant the right to demand a postindictment preliminary hearing would be a superfluous [15 Cal. 3d 268] formalism because the issue of probable cause had already been decided by the grand jury. However, the facts of the instant case provide an excellent demonstration of the potential value of such a postindictment hearing.
As the majority note, "Not only did the district attorney fail to inform the grand jury of petitioner's [prior] preliminary hearing testimony, but he also created the false impression that petitioner would refuse to testify if called." (Ante, p. 253.) It appears obvious that the district attorney was determined to initiate this prosecution in a forum that would preclude petitioner from testifying in his own behalf. If this tactic would be unavailing because of the defendant's right to a subsequent preliminary hearing, a prosecutor would have no incentive to engage in such devious gamesmanship. The safeguard of an available preliminary hearing is clearly preferable to the majority's proposal of depending upon this prosecutor -- the same one who misrepresented petitioner's desire to testify and engaged in the "clear misconduct" of referring to petitioner's invocation of Miranda -- to take the responsibility of protecting petitioner's rights by presenting the exculpatory evidence.
In addition to the likelihood that recognition of this right would preclude instances such as the case at bar from arising in the future, there is also a strong possibility that problems such as Uhlemann (see fn. 12, ante) henceforth will be avoided. While a rule requiring a postindictment preliminary hearing would not remove the incentive to forum shop among magistrates, it would remove any advantage to be gained from seeking an indictment. This would at least insure that the defendant is always given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him, and, if he chooses, to present his own evidence through his own attorney, In factual contexts such as the case at bar such an opportunity might well provide the critical difference.
The alternative of leaving the grand jury structure in the posture here formulated by the majority is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, under the majority's rule the prosecutor need inform the grand jury only of the existence and nature of exculpatory evidence of which he is aware, thus by obvious implication excluding from the grand jury's consideration evidence solely in the defendant's possession which might adequately explain away the charge. In the present case, had there not been a prior preliminary hearing it is likely the district attorney would have been unaware of petitioner's exculpatory evidence. Under the [15 Cal. 3d 269] majority's formulation, however, there would be no way in which petitioner could have halted this unwarranted prosecution prior to trial.
Secondly, the district attorney need not call the defendant to testify or even inform the grand jury of its statutory right to order the defendant or his evidence produced. Rather, the majority are content to leave it to the grand jury, sua sponte, to "exercise its power under the statute to order the evidence produced." (Ante, p. 256.) Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, one may seriously question the enthusiasm and zeal that a prosecuting attorney seeking an indictment will bring to the task of presenting the accused's exculpatory evidence. I suggest that the proper person to present the accused's evidence is the accused through his attorney, and the proper forum is one which will permit the development not only of affirmative exculpatory evidence but also evidence gleaned from adequate cross-examination and confrontation of the state's witnesses.
The administrative burden of requiring preliminary hearings for all indicted defendants would be negligible. Some indicted defendants may choose to waive the subsequent preliminary hearing. But even if none do so, no court congestion will eventuate. The vast majority of felony prosecutions in California are begun by information with an attendant preliminary hearing. For example, in 1971 only 4.1 percent of the felony filings were prosecuted by indictment. (Alexander & Portman, Grand Jury Indictment Versus Prosecution by Information -- An Equal Protection-Due Process Issue (1974) 25 Hastings L.J. 997, 1014.) To incorporate these few indicted defendants into the general administrative mainstream would obviously present no problem. Seldom are we given an opportunity to correct such a massive deprivation of rights by so minimal an effort.
As the concurring opinion of Justice Mosk suggests, the current application of the grand jury indictment function raises serious constitutional questions. In my view, however, a determination of such fundamental issues should properly await a case in which these questions have been directly raised and argued by the parties. Since that is not the case here, I express no opinion on the merits of these constitutional claims.
FN 1. This opinion is exclusively concerned with the grand jury's indicting process and not with its investigative function (see Olson, The California Grand Jury: An Analysis and Evaluation of Its Watchdog Function (1966)), nor with questions relating to selection of its membership (see Mar, California Grand Jury; Vestige of Aristocracy (1970) 1 Pacific L.J. 36). The grand jury serves a valuable and productive role in the area of investigation, particularly with respect to governmental corruption or ineptitude. Its public reports to the citizenry serve a salutary governmental and educational purpose. (See my dissent in People v. Superior Court (1973 Grand Jury) (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 430, 442 [119 Cal. Rptr. 193, 531 P.2d 761].) With regard to selection practices, there may lurk constitutional issues to be confronted in the future, but they are not presented in the case at bar.
FN 2. Article I, section 14, provides: "Felonies shall be prosecuted as provided by law, either by indictment or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by information."
FN 4. There is a technical difference between an indictment and a presentment. A presentment is an accusation made by the grand jury itself, flowing from the knowledge and personal observation of the members. An indictment comes to the grand jury as a charge from without, usually from a prosecutor or the king's officer, to which the grand jury either returns a true bill or a bill of "ignoramus."
FN 6. On those isolated occasions when grand jurors assert their independence, they are disparagingly referred to as "a runaway grand jury."
FN 7. Indeed even in the late 19th century this was still an open question in the United States. However, in Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 U.S. 516 [28 L. Ed. 232, 4 S. Ct. 111, 292], the Supreme Court, over the vigorous dissent of Justice Harlan, held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not require an indictment as a condition precedent to a state felony prosecution.
FN 10. The traditional response that the grand jury is per se constitutional because of its express mention in both the United States (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.) and California Constitutions (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14) is unpersuasive. Although both charters speak of the grand jury as an institution, neither delineates how the system is to be administered, these matters being legislatively and judicially mandated. It is not the existence of the grand jury which is at issue -- that is constitutionally recognized; it is the procedure, not defined in either charter, which is conditionally inadequate.
FN 11. The court took pains to elaborate the reasons why counsel was necessary: "First, the lawyer's skilled examination and cross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal weaknesses in the State's case that may lead the magistrate to refuse to bind the accused over. Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State's witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial. Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the preliminary hearing in making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination or bail." (Ibid.) These same factors, of course, also dictate that indicted defendants receive a postindictment preliminary hearing, because in California at present these advantages are not granted to indicted defendants.
FN 12. People v. Uhlemann (1973) supra, 9 Cal. 3d 662, is illustrative of the advantage. At the preliminary hearing the defendant, through counsel, was able to discredit the prosecution witnesses as he confronted them. The experienced magistrate refused to hold the defendant for trial. Undaunted, the prosecutor went forum shopping and took the case before the grand jury, where, such matters being uncontested, it was readily predictable that an indictment would be returned. It was.
FN 13. It may be argued, for example, that in certain cases there is an overwhelming need for the secrecy which can be obtained only through the grand jury, either for the protection of witnesses or, in rare instances, for the protection of the defendant himself. (See People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 710 [102 Cal. Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121].) However, once an indictment is returned these considerations can no longer be considered operative, because whatever secrecy was achieved through the grand jury will be forsaken when the defendant is brought to trial. Thus there would appear to be no reason, postindictment, why the defendant could not be accorded a preliminary hearing.
FN 15. The wording of the California Constitution does not preclude a postindictment probable cause hearing. Article I, section 14, provides that felonies shall be prosecuted "as provided by law." The term "law" of course embraces judicial rulings as well as legislative enactments. (Cf. Evid. Code, § 160.) Prior to the November 1974 streamlining of the state Constitution the wording of the section made plain that a post-indictment preliminary hearing was a considered possibility. At that time article I, section 8, provided: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law." From the ballot arguments and opinion of the legislative analyst it is clear that no substantive changes in this section were intended by the 1974 amendment.
FN 16. Edwards, page 35.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 § 160