25 Cal. App. 5th 515
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Contra Costa County charged Jonathan Jackson by grand jury with murder, kidnapping, rape, and multiple enhancements; grand jury of 19 convened and later returned an indictment with all 18 remaining jurors concurring.
- At the start of proceedings a deputy district attorney (DDA DeFerrari) questioned a grand juror who disclosed some familiarity with the victim and then, in front of the other jurors, excused that juror for cause rather than directing the foreperson to do so as required by Penal Code §939.5.
- The People conceded the excusal violated §939.5; petitioner moved under §995 and nonstatutory grounds to dismiss the indictment, arguing the DDA’s conduct impaired grand jury independence and violated due process.
- The trial court initially moved to dismiss based on the Third District’s decision in Williams, later vacated that order after the California Supreme Court granted review in Williams, then denied dismissal after concluding prejudice must be shown absent a structural defect.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo and held the DDA’s action was a statutory error but did not constitute a due process violation, did not deprive Jackson of a substantial right, and did not prejudice him; it denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor’s on-the-record excusal of a grand juror (violating §939.5) violated defendant’s due process right to an independent, impartial grand jury | DDA’s excusal usurped the foreperson/court, compromised grand jury independence and impartiality, requiring dismissal without showing prejudice | Error was technical; prosecutor intended to protect fairness; excusal did not impair grand jury’s independent functioning and did not require dismissal absent prejudice | The statutory violation did not amount to a due process violation on these facts; no dismissal warranted |
| Whether the excusal deprived defendant of a “substantial right” under §995 such that dismissal is appropriate without prejudice showing | Excusal of a statutorily-designated function (foreperson’s duty) is inherently prejudicial and thus a substantial-right deprivation | The right protected by §939.5 is not analogous to core rights (e.g., counsel); excusal is not inherently prejudicial; petitioner must show actual prejudice | Not a deprivation of a substantial right in this case; petitioner failed to show such deprivation |
| Whether a showing of prejudice is required to obtain dismissal of an indictment for grand jury irregularities raised pretrial | Plaintiff relied on dicta allowing pretrial relief without prejudice in some contexts; urged dismissal without showing prejudice | Precedent requires showing actual prejudice for grand jury procedural errors except rare structural defects (e.g., racial discrimination) | Prejudice must be shown; petitioner failed to show the excusal substantially influenced the indictment |
| Remedy scope after prosecutorial grand jury procedure errors | Automatic dismissal argued (per Williams and similar decisions) | Remedies short of dismissal (contempt, disciplinary action); dismissal only if prejudice or structural defect shown | Dismissal denied; other corrective measures available, but not warranted here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Backus, 23 Cal.3d 360 (Cal. 1979) (extensive presentation of incompetent evidence to grand jury can violate due process and warrant dismissal if it substantially impairs grand jury independence)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.5th 1049 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prosecutor’s improper excusal of grand juror held to have substantially impaired grand jury; court of appeal ordered dismissal)
- People v. Packer, 201 Cal.App.4th 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses limits on challenge to grand jury based on juror bias and burden to show actual prejudice)
- People v. Jablonski, 37 Cal.4th 774 (Cal. 2006) (grand jury secrecy violations require showing of actual prejudice; structural-error treatment limited)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1988) (federal rule: dismissal of indictment for grand jury errors requires showing those errors substantially influenced the indictment decision)
- People v. Kempley, 205 Cal. 441 (Cal. 1928) (historical rule limiting attacks on indictments for grand juror bias; discussed but distinguished here)
- People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (Cal. 2011) (noting grand jury irregularities are generally reviewed for prejudice; rare exceptions exist)