There is an interesting story out of Texas in the Perry controversy that raises the difference between grand juries and petit juries. One of the grand jurors, Rho Chalmers, who indicted Governor Rick Perry turned out to be a delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention who not only actively participated in the convention during her service but actually took a picture with a Democratic state representative who appeared as a witness before her jury.
The rules on conflicts are more relaxed for grand jurors due to the larger number of members and the fact that their decisions are only to indict rather than to convict. However, Chalmers’ political work during the pendency of the case raises question of whether a recusal or at least a notice should be required of members. I am not saying that she acted out of political animus. I am perfectly willing to accept her insistence that it was “not a political decision” for her to vote to indict. Yet, the appearance could not be worse in such a case and the question is whether the issue was raised with the special prosecutor, San Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum.
News reports state that Chalmers attended the Democratic convention and commented on its proceedings while the grand jury proceedings were occurring. She was also photographed with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson, a witness. It is not known if she discussed the matter with him.
The grand jury was selected in April, 2014 and did not conclude until last week. Yet, on June 27, 2014, Chalmers shared a photo of the Watson event on a community Facebook page stating, “Senator Kirk Watson telling the story of the Wendy Davis fillibuster (sic).”
Numerous posts from both of Chalmers’ Facebook pages — her personal page, which she shares with her husband, Davis, and her “Developer’s Dungeon” page — make clear that she is a partisan Democratic activist, and that she was an active participant in the Texas Democratic Party’s state convention in June while grand jury proceedings were ongoing. Her postings revealed a strong Democratic following and activism for both her and her husband, including her participating in the Rules Committee. She states “The Rules Committee was challenging but fun. A little over half a day to resolve everything but we ‘got er done’!” she wrote. She then liked and shared that post using her personal Facebook page, where she noted that she was “pleasantly surprised that I wasn’t completely lost on this committee.”
The grand jury rules are, in my view, woefully ambiguous on how to handle conflicts and, while personal relationships are addressed, the rules do not deal with these type of conflicts:
Art. 19.08. QUALIFICATIONS. No person shall be selected or
serve as a grand juror who does not possess the following
qualifications:
1. The person must be a citizen of the state, and of the
county in which the person is to serve, and be qualified under the
Constitution and laws to vote in said county, provided that the
person’s failure to register to vote shall not be held to disqualify
the person in this instance;
2. The person must be of sound mind and good moral character;
3. The person must be able to read and write;
4. The person must not have been convicted of misdemeanor
theft or a felony;
5. The person must not be under indictment or other legal
accusation for misdemeanor theft or a felony;
6. The person must not be related within the third degree of
consanguinity or second degree of affinity, as determined under
Chapter 573, Government Code, to any person selected to serve or
serving on the same grand jury;
7. The person must not have served as grand juror or jury
commissioner in the year before the date on which the term of court
for which the person has been selected as grand juror begins;
8. The person must not be a complainant in any matter to be
heard by the grand jury during the term of court for which the
person has been selected as a grand juror.
Once again, I am not casting aspersions on Chalmers who did nothing that I can see that violates these rules. However, it is a serious appearance problem in having a grand juror who interacts with a witness and actively working for the opposing party to a political figure during her service. I believe that the rules should expressly require notice to the judge and prosecutor of such contacts or activities and that grand jurors have a running obligation to raise potential conflicts of interest for possible recusal from a case of this kind. People have been voicing arguments on both sides of this controversy. I have criticized the indictment, including in a column out today. Others on this blog believe that indictment is well founded. Yet, such controversies over grand jury service are not good for either side and distract from the merits of the case.
Source: Chronicle and AL and media trackers
swarthmoremom
This will probably help Perry’s presidential campaign.
…
===============================
He needs all the help he can get … just to get through the primaries.
After that, there is not enough help in the world to get him elected president.
So, his humiliation will once again be as small as the primaries.
SWM, You’re having a flashback to the bad days pre 2014 when everyone was a “RAAAAACIST, homophobe, sexist, sociopath,” etc. nick Don’t know about sociopathic but the rest of the rhetoric has escalated. Any unbiased observer would notice that and many have and commented.
Swarthmoremom,
You have probably already read this:
What the Pundits Don’t Get About the Rick Perry Indictment
http://www.texasobserver.org/pundits-dont-get-rick-perry-indictment/
Elaine, Most liberals inside the beltway have been critical of the Perry indictment including David Axelrod. Liberals and moderate republicans in Texas who are closer to the situation seem to disagree with the beltway pundits.
“However, it is a serious appearance problem in having a grand juror who interacts with a witness and actively working for the opposing party to a political figure during her service. I believe that the rules should expressly require notice to the judge and prosecutor of such contacts or activities and that grand jurors have a running obligation to raise potential conflicts of interest for possible recusal from a case of this kind.”
I was unaware that we currently lack a rule that would have excluded a juror with such an obvious conflict of interest. Time to address that!
Darren,
There have been many people on the left who have been critical of the Perry indictment. Not all liberals/Democrats/people on the left think alike/have the same opinion on all political and social issues. I believe the same holds true for conservatives/Republicans/people on the right.
Yet another political aspect of the case.
We need to avoid abusing the criminal justice system for political gain.
leej, If I remember correctly, Walsh harkens from the military, where there still is honor.
leej, Our VP is a famous plagiarist. And, plagiarism, while serious in my book, is not a criminal offense. It does fall into the category of honor, which I have stated has all but vanished in our duopoly.
leecarrol:
I’m sorry, but who was it exactly that “forced” John Walsh to withdraw??? And didn’t Walsh’s plagiarism permit him to obtain additional government money???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
SWM, You’re having a flashback to the bad days pre 2014 when everyone was a “RAAAAACIST, homophobe, sexist, sociopath,” etc. When someone exhibits all the characteristics of a cult follower then they are a cultist. I’m always cautious using the words folk like you love to throw around. Those are serious. But, for cultists, the first step in the cure is admitting you are one. Of course, that is if you want to be cured.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-plagiarism-accusations-against-sen-rand-paul/
Paul can do no wrong, Oh yes he can and did but it doesn’t matter.
More plagiarism accusations against Sen. Rand Paul
“Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., already in hot water over accusations that he plagiarized portions of his book and several recent speeches, has a new headache to contend with: On Thursday, BuzzFeed reported that additional passages from his book “Government Bullies” were plagiarized from articles by think tank academics.
Paul has previously sustained fire from critics for copying portions of his book from conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, and he has also faced accusations that he plagiarized several Wikipedia articles as well as an Associated Press article in recent speeches.
In this most recent episode, Paul copied nearly word-for-word an article by Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation that was published in January 2012 in “Regulation,” a quarterly journal from the Cato Institute. He also included a near-verbatim copy of a section from the same journal written in 2010 by law professor Jonathan Adler….”
(Meanwhile as Iposted previously a democratic senate candidate was forced to withdraw from his race because of plagiarism allegations. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/montana-sen-john-walsh-abandons-senate-race-plagiarism/story?id=24889371
Montana Sen. John Walsh Abandons Senate Race After Plagiarism Scandal.
Every person has a bias of some kind. The hope is that people take other’s lives seriously enough to put aside that bias in search of the truth.
That means even people of white privileged or Democratic partisans should not be condemned in this situation unless they show that they have failed to seek justice because of their status as a member of one group or another.
“This thread allows an intellectually honest person who has never been here previously to pick out the Dem cultists. Wow!nick Turned into the “cultists”, your words, versus the bigots. You have your homophobes, Phyllis Schafly’s and a racist poet laureate that make jokes about black people with ropes around their necks.
Well, and we are not surprised because?
Nick,
I am glad you missed me.
Darren,
Calling grand juries a rubber stamp is being kind. I think the number of no bills is more like 1 in a 1000.
Darren, They would be SCREAMING if he were a Dem.
This thread allows an intellectually honest person who has never been here previously to pick out the Dem cultists. Wow! These prosecutions of Rep prez candidates has the stench of Clinton all over them. All wink and a nod, no paper trail. Now watch, rafflaw will ask me for proof. I have no proof, it’s just professional expertise and a very good knowledge of the Clintons. Rand Paul must be next, then Cruz?
Darren,
My understanding is a Special Priosecutor was appointed…. From Bexar County…. Not Travis….
I wonder if the left would be so supportive of this grand jury indictment if it was instead against a Democratic governor.