Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Deficiencies in the Composition of the Grand Jury

Text: Muhammad argues that the process utilized in his indictment was fatally flawed because the grand jury that indicted him was improperly constituted in violation of Virginia Law and [his] rights to due process and equal protection. Other than this conclusory statement and the further statement that the process is arbitrary and vague, Muhammad makes no constitutional argument in his brief in support of his contentions. His argument is insufficient. Rule 5:17(c). Furthermore, no constitutional argument was raised in the trial court. Rule 5:25. We will not consider this vague and uncertain constitutional challenge to the composition of the grand jury. Additionally, his statutory challenge is without merit. Code งง 19.2-191 through -205 govern the selection of regular grand jurors. The record reveals that the grand jurors who returned indictments against Muhammad were selected pursuant to the following routine process. The clerk of the court creates a list of individuals who have been called to serve as petit jurors at least three times, but not in the immediately preceding three years. From that list, a smaller list of 120 names is created. The list of 120 names is reviewed by all the judges of the circuit. Questionnaires are sent to the persons on the list. At each term of court, seven jurors are randomly selected to serve as regular grand jurors. The chief judge of the circuit reviews the questionnaires prior to the first meeting of the grand jury. During his first meeting with the grand jurors, the chief judge discusses their duties with them and selects one of them to be the foreperson. The procedure employed in this case complies with the requirements outlined by statute that the grand jury be composed of persons 18 years of age or over, of honesty, intelligence and good demeanor and suitable in all respects to serve as grand jurors, Code ง 19.2-194, and a citizen of this Commonwealth, eighteen years of age or over, and shall have been a resident of this Commonwealth one year and of the county or corporation in which the court is to be held six months, and is in other respects a qualified juror. Code ง 19.2-195. Finally, Muhammad claims that the grand jurors were not properly rotated as required by Section 19.2-194. There is no evidence to support his claim. The evidence does establish that this grand jury was sworn to sit for a two month term in October and November 2002. We hold that the evidence does not sustain a claim that there were infirmities in the process, selection, or make-up of the grand jury that indicted Muhammad.