Secrecy fuels suspicion. It’s natural to wonder what happens behind closed doors.
After immense public pressure from activists and politicians as well as a court motion by an unidentified juror, Kentucky’s attorney general elected to release a recording of the grand jury proceedings that didn’t result in homicide charges for the officers involved in the killing of Breonna Taylor. (One officer was charged with wanton endangerment for firing through a wall.)
Roughly 15 hours of audio includes witness testimony, but not the prosecutor’s recommendations or the jurors’ deliberations. Testimony from the police officers; Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker; and her neighbors offered conflicting details, with the officers claiming they announced themselves as police and Walker stating that he never heard them do so.
Grand jury proceedings are secret to facilitate honesty and transparency and to protect jurors’ identities. The practicality and legality of such concealment is well established.
In this case, however, the attorney general was right to unveil the specifics of the proceedings.
When the argument is that the entire system is corrupt, there must be accountability and transparency.
It’s also true that an attorney general exercises significant control over the narrative during grand jury proceedings. And one of the jurors in the case is contending that Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron mischaracterized the grand jury’s deliberations and didn’t even offer the panel the option of indictment.
In such a crucial case, not to record the recommendations was a mistake, even though he was not legally obligated to do so. (The federal court system and many state courts require prosecutors’ instructions to be recorded.)
In a news conference, Cameron said none of the possible six homicide charges under Kentucky law applied to the case of Taylor, and that the grand jury agreed with this conclusion. The anonymous juror’s lawyer has said the juror was uncomfortable with the fact that there was no option to charge the two officers, given the public outcry.
America’s justice system does not and should not take public opinion into account.
If the laws that the system obeys are corrupt, then the recourse is electing leaders and pressuring them to change the laws, not imposing mob rule after the fact. In this case, the officers’ use of force was tragic, but legally justified, according to the grand jury.
Cameron has said he is not concerned about allowing jurors to speak out if they choose. If he upheld the law, he shouldn’t be. During this time of heightened scrutiny and lowered trust in institutions, pulling back the curtain is the only wise move.
