In the days following the tragic shooting that took the lives of three young Texans, X users erupted in a firestorm over the Travis County District Attorney’s perceived policy of taking all law enforcement officers involved in shootings to a grand jury, regardless of whether the use of force was justified. In the aftermath of the shooting, first responders arrived at lightning speed in under one minute. The suspect was swiftly neutralized upon the arrival of police officers; a response which was widely praised by the Austin community.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott took to X, responding that he would “have the final say” if the law enforcement officers who bravely stopped the shooter were to be indicted. District Attorney Jose Garza later clarified he would not seek charges against these officers, although he failed to acknowledge any internal office policies or procedures blanketly requiring grand jury investigations for any officer involved shooting, rather than using discretion in use of force cases. As Texas lawmakers pointed out after Garza released his statement, this exact situation highlights the need for grand jury reform in the State of Texas.
In Texas, prosecutors are not currently statutorily required to present exculpatory evidence—crucial evidence that could clear a defendant’s name—to a grand jury. This deeply violates long-held American principles of liberty and due process and deprives crime victims of owed justice.
Unlike traditional jury trials, grand juries are incredibly secretive, and there are no transcripts taken. This, in addition to a defense attorney not being present, deprives defendants of knowledge of the allegations against them and brings into question the integrity of the indictment. A common criticism of grand juries, especially in Texas where all felonies require a grand jury indictment, is that a prosecutor could have anyone indicted because of how secretive and favorable to the prosecution the proceedings are.
Another feature often subject to criticism is the ability of prosecutors to seek indictments against the same individual with the same charges and no new evidence. This practice is commonly known as grand jury shopping. Prosecutors can bring the same case to new grand juries over and over again until a jury reaches an outcome desired by the district attorney’s office is secured. This practice was highly publicized during the indictment of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas).
In the 89th Texas Legislature, grand jury reform bills were introduced by Sen. Flores (R-Pleasanton), Rep. Smithee (R-Amarillo), and Rep. Little (R-Lewisville). Among the proposals were required training for grand jury participants, a ban on grand jury shopping, a requirement to record the witness testimony during grand jury proceedings, a witness right-to-counsel before their examination in grand jury proceedings, and the required presentation of exculpatory evidence before a grand jury. HB 3664 passed the House and was recommended by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, but was never brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
A trained grand jury with more robust knowledge of the facts of the case makes for better informed indictments that will prevent waste of resources and better protect citizens against frivolous prosecutions.
The secrecy of the grand jury process serves a legitimate purpose but should not be a detriment to justice nor should it seek to indict the innocent. Lawmakers in the 90th Legislature should revive these proposals to bring much needed transparency and accountability into the grand jury system in Texas.