Opinion ID: 1669209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Comments on Newspaper Coverage

Text: The county attorney mentioned that the jurors might read about cases to come before them in the newspaper. The panel found that [i]t was error for the county attorney to refer to newspaper coverage of current homicide cases without strongly discouraging the grand jurors from exposing themselves to media coverage of matters that would come before them. Memorandum at 33. It also found that the net effect of the county attorney's comments was to enhance the significance of newspapers, however, it did not find reversible error. When the panel evaluated the cumulative effect of the numerous errors in the March 1988 grand jury, it still held them to be harmless. We disagree with its conclusion. Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the    errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant's prejudice by producing a biased jury. United States v. Samango, 607 F.2d 877, 884 (9th Cir.1979). In State v. Grose, 387 N.W.2d 182 (Minn.App.1986), the court addressed a plethora of improper comments, misstatements and procedural violations by the prosecutor. In upholding the dismissal of the indictments, the court held that, [t]aken cumulatively    these actions may have improperly influenced the grand jury, preventing it from acting as an independent body. Id. at 190. The errors in this case, although not of the magnitude in Grose, justify the same result. Threatening members of the grand jury that they could be picked up by police, handing out instructions from previous grand jurors, and giving inaccurate instructions on probable cause and the effect of a failure to indict are the types of errors that seriously undermine the integrity and independence of the grand jury. Prosecutors must not take advantage of their role as representatives of the state to influence unduly or unfairly a grand jury's decisions. [3] As we concluded in State v. Inthavong, 402 N.W.2d 799 (Minn.1987): [T]his is one of those instances where the error is fundamental and the integrity of the grand jury system cannot afford the assumption that the jurors were not misled. Id. at 803. We thus find that the indictments before us from the 1988 grand jury were not returned as required by law and prejudiced the substantial rights of defendants. Minn.R.Crim.P. 17.06, subd. 2(2)(a). We order representment with regard to the defendants who were indicted by the March 1988 grand jury and remain parties to this appeal. [4] It is true, as appellants note, that today's harmless error can become the standard practice of tomorrow. Thus, while we recognize that dismissing indictments may result in serious ramifications, we know of no other way to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and maintain the independence of the grand jury. With the vast state resources available for the investigation and prosecution of crime, there is no need to disregard the safeguards which took 700 years to develop within the English and American common law systems. The grand jury is not intended to be a tool of the prosecution or the defense. It is an arm of the judiciary and, as such, it shall be used in a fair, impartial and independent manner or not at all. This decision is necessary to protect not only the defendants, but all of us as well.