Opinion ID: 1384669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Empaneling Jury and Engrossment of Indictments

Text: Argument considering the propriety of the action is artificial and academic because of the absence of a record of what was presented to the court that may or may not have justified the grand jury call except the obviously intended avoidance of preliminary hearings. The majority presume validity, while from a lifetime nurtured in cynicism, fortified by fact-denying secrecy, I profess doubt. I will not as simplistically excuse statutory compliance with the indictment execution process. In this drumhead race to attenuated indictment, the pre-appearance prepared indictments included in typed phraseology the a true bill statutory endorsement requirement for the jury foreman. This status is symptomatic of the entire operation where the State denies its statutory obligation as the process is hidden in secrecy. Why should a rule compliance be a non sequitur for the prosecutor when waiver and harmless error impale the defendant? Cf. Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657 (1895), where no statutory provision existed requiring such indorsement and authentication. I do not need authority to deny rationally the court's conclusion. The Wyoming legislature specifically decided the execution process for indictment. Through either ignorance or willful noncompliance of the prosecutor, the statute was ignored. Case law is missing, since where else would 67 indictments be prepared in an explicit fashion contrary to statute? In dissent, I doubt the question deserves further consideration, since future prosecutors can surely follow § 7-5-104, W.S. 1977, 1987 Replacement, as then subjected to court examination upon presentation by § 7-5-209, W.S. 1977, 1987 Replacement: Indictments found by the grand jury shall be presented by the foreman to the court in the presence of the jury and filed with the clerk. I find the form-and-substance rule to be a two-way street, particularly as applied or ignored in statutory mandatory requirements for indictment execution and authentication. I would find there is no indictment unless executed in the statutorily required fashion, or the requirement is properly waived by failure of any attack on the indictment before trial. Surely one lawyer, one judge, one clerk of court, and one jury foreman can combine to assure proper execution of this singularly oppressive personal-liability document. A not unfair comparison would be the unsigned affidavit for issuance of an arrest or search warrant. The ratio decidendi of Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 64, 97 So. 502 (1923), of failure to object to indictment prior to trial in one case can scarcely be applied as authority in this case to 67 or 94 improperly executed criminal-charge documents. See State v. DeBoard, 119 W. Va. 396, 194 S.E. 349 (1937), and State v. Burnette, 118 W. Va. 501, 190 S.E. 905 (1937). The Wyoming statute does not say may, but says shall in § 7-5-106, W.S. 1977, and still says shall in the present statute, § 7-5-104(c), W.S. 1977, 1987 Replacement: If an indictment is found as provided by this section the foreman of the grand jury shall endorse upon the indictment the words `A True Bill' and shall sign the indictment.