How to Throw a Grand Jury Under the Bus

A grand juror in the Breonna Taylor case has been given leave to make a statement about the proceedings.

For background Breonna Taylor was shot and killed in her home by police, after her boyfriend fired at the cops believing they were home intruders. The prosecutor in charge of this case, Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron (and also a speaker at this year's RNC), was the one in charge of presenting the conduct of the police to a grand jury. For those that don't know, a grand jury is distinct from what a "regular" jury (also known as a petit jury for some reason) in that its job is to serve as the floodgates for the beginning of a criminal case. They're the ones who decide whether there is sufficient probable cause to support an indictment (It's a constitutional requirement at the federal level, but not every state follows suit).

The proceedings are also shrouded in secrecy, and I think for good reason. If the facts merit an indictment, then the indictment becomes a public record. But if not, then it stays secret, and the target of the investigation leaves with their reputation a bit less tarnished. The deck is stacked in many ways against defendants. For instance, defendants are not allowed to present a counter-case, so it's all very one-sided. Witnesses are explicitly not allowed to have an attorney present. And so the process is often seen as a rubber stamping committee for the prosecution. Famously, grand juries will indict a ham sandwich.

So in the case of Taylor's killing, Cameron promised a thorough investigation of the police officers involved and that the facts would be presented to a grand jury (whose membership is secret) and that they would decide which charges are appropriate. Not too long ago, the only charges announced were against one of the three officers, and it was only for "wanton endangerment". Cameron, in his new conference, had said that they “walked the grand jury through every homicide offense" and that "the grand jury agreed" that the officers who shot Taylor were justified.

Immediately after, an anonymous grand juror filed suit and asked the court for permission to speak out. Cameron opposed the motion but ultimately it was granted. The juror, through their attorney, has contradicted key aspects of Cameron's claim. For one, prosecutors never presented anything but "wanton endangerment" as charges for consideration. When the jurors asked about other charges, the prosecutors claimed they "didn't feel they could make them stick". The juror also disputes ever having homicide charges discussed, and they dispute that the jury ever established that the officer's actions were justified.

Cameron has since admitted that they never presented homicide charges to the grand jury because the prosecutors (not the grand jury) believed there was insufficient proof.

So. Cameron is not disputing the juror's account. It seems clear that Cameron either lied or used intentionally misleading language when he claimed the grand jury was "walked through" the homicide offenses, and that they "agreed" the cops were justified. It seems like the decision to charge the officers with only wanton endangerment was made entirely by the prosecutors, but it appears that they wanted to launder the decision through an anonymous body in order to shift accountability. That's the gist of the message Cameron gave at his Sept 23 news conference: all the important decisions were under the domain of the grand jury, not us.

Even from a realpolitik standpoint, it seems like it would've been far easier to just throw the cops to the wolves like regular civilian defendants normally are in these circumstances. But Cameron did speak at the RNC, so maybe he sees his cover for the police officers as a carrying water obligation for his place in the culture wars.