Should state lawmakers follow the recommendation of a task force of judges, attorneys and legal scholars to do away with investigating grand juries?

The question deeply divides legal minds, legislators, even the seven-member panel itself which favored the recommendation by a narrow 4-3 vote.

This type of grand jury is the one which investigated and detailed extensive allegations of child sexual abuse among the Catholic clergy which rocked dioceses, including Allentown’s and Scranton’s. Another grand jury investigated the Jerry Sandusky child abuse allegations case in 2011.

The grand jury system is a throwback to old English law, but its critics have been outspoken about its issues and whether it has a place in modern jurisprudence.

A grand jury consists of a group of citizens chosen from a jury pool which is asked to investigate major issues within a county or jurisdiction. A “grand” jury — the word means “large” in French — contains 23 members and alternates. This contrasts with a “petit” jury — the French word for “small — which has 12 members and two alternates to hear criminal cases. In some civil cases, a jury can consist of as few as six members.

Years ago in Pennsylvania, all more serious criminal cases were initially brought before a grand jury to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to hold the cases for court.

That system has pretty much been discarded now. Let’s face it — the grand juries convened in those days were rigged against the defendant. Only evidence was presented by the prosecution, generally through the district attorney’s office. Grand jurors almost always followed the lead of the district attorney or his or her surrogate in steering grand jurors to return what was called a “true bill.”

Once in a blue moon, grand jurors would throw out a case for insufficient evidence, but statistics provided by advocacy groups opposed to this system showed that more than 98% of the cases brought before a grand jury were bound over for court.

Pennsylvania modified and streamlined the process by giving district justices (magistrates) the power to decide whether there is enough evidence to hold a case for court. Truth be told, most of these cases also are rubber-stamped in favor of the prosecution.

Many years ago, the former justices of the peace went the way of the horse and buggy when the district magisterial system came into being, bringing with it much more significant training for the officeholders.

Grand jury proceedings are secret. Revealing the contents of any of the cases is a violation of state law. You may recall that former state Attorney General Kathleen Kane was convicted and went to jail for leaking secret grand jury testimony to a Philadelphia newspaper.

The secret process that allows prosecutors to subpoena records and question witnesses behind closed doors can result in presentments calling for criminal charges or reports that detail the jury’s findings.

In the task force panel’s report, released after a two-year review of the state grand jury system, it recommended improving the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings, including sessions in buildings where witnesses could enter and leave without being seen by the public.

After controversy occurred over how grand juries handled the priest-abuse and Sandusky cases, the state Supreme Court decided to convene the task force in 2017 and have its members draw up a list of recommendations.

In recent years, county district attorneys and the state attorney general will ask grand juries to hear allegations of corruption and malfeasance on the part of elected or appointed officials, then recommend criminal action, if warranted.

One of the most recent local grand jury investigations was in Monroe County concerning the Pleasant Valley School District. The 16-month investigation, released in 2018, concluded: “These findings all corroborate a culture of cronyism, bullying, intimidation, and retaliation exercised by prior administrators over staff members. The findings show that in many cases the best interests of the students and district were ignored to advance selfish goals. …”

I wonder why grand juries were not convened in Carbon and Schuylkill counties to investigate the abuses in the clerks of courts offices. Given how long these offices were mismanaged and how widespread this knowledge was, these investigations should have been no-brainers.

I agree with Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who opposes elimination of the grand jury system. I believe it is one of the most effective ways to expose official and institutional wrongdoing.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com