15 Cal. App. 5th 1049
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Petitioner Darren Williams was indicted by a San Joaquin County grand jury on multiple robbery-related counts after a multi-day grand jury presentation in April 2016. At least 12 jurors endorsed the 68‑page indictment.
- During grand jury proceedings the deputy district attorney excused Juror No. 15 for alleged economic hardship in the presence of the other grand jurors and did not seek or record a judicial determination or replacement juror.
- The deputy district attorney also recorded on the record a conversation with Juror No. 10 about a potential witness familiarity but did not remove that juror.
- Williams moved under Penal Code § 995 to dismiss the indictment, arguing the prosecutor lacked authority to excuse jurors, invaded the grand jury’s independence, and thereby rendered the grand jury improperly constituted.
- The superior court denied the motion, reasoning that although the excusal was improper, at least 12 jurors voted and no actual prejudice was shown; Williams petitioned the Court of Appeal for writ relief.
- The Court of Appeal granted relief, concluding the prosecutor’s public excusal of Juror No. 15 exercised judicial authority, undermined the grand jury’s independence and impartiality, and was not harmless; the court ordered dismissal (without prejudice to reprosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s excusal of a grand juror for hardship in front of jurors invalidates the indictment | Williams: Prosecutor exceeded authority, usurped court’s role, compromised grand jury independence, rendering indictment defective | People: Excusal was a technical statutory violation but harmless because 12+ jurors still voted to indict; no substantial prejudice | Court: Excusal by prosecutor substantially impaired grand jury independence and impartiality; dismissal required (peremptory writ) |
| Whether the indictment was void for lack of a legally constituted grand jury because the panel fell below required size | Williams: Failure to maintain statutorily required number of jurors voids indictment | People: An indictment stands if minimum voting threshold (12) is met despite total falling below statutory panel size | Court: Indictment was not void for jurisdictional defect under precedent, but still dismissible for impairment of independence |
| Whether alleged actions regarding Juror No. 10 (familiarity with witness) require relief | Williams: Prosecutor’s handling of Juror No. 10 further shows improper control over grand jury | People: Issue forfeited; prosecutor merely noted facts and did not dismiss juror | Court: Forfeited and not necessary to decide; focus remains on Juror No. 15 excusal |
| Proper remedy and scope of dismissal | Williams: Dismiss indictment for defect; preclude prosecution | People: Deny dismissal because no prejudice; if dismissal, allow reprosecution | Court: Grant dismissal of indictment as to Williams but without prejudice — People may seek new indictment or file a new complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (discusses grand jury as institution independent from government branches)
- Bruner v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. 239 (1891) (indictment void where grand jury formation deprived it of lawful authority)
- Fitts v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal.2d 514 (1935) (distinguishes jurisdictional defects from mere irregularities in grand jury formation)
- People v. Hunter, 54 Cal. 65 (1879) (an indictment stands if minimum number required to find a true bill concurred despite panel being below statutory size)
- McGill v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 1454 (2011) (prosecutor conduct that undermines grand jury’s investigatory independence can require dismissal)
- Stark v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.4th 368 (2011) (grand jury procedural defects may implicate due process even if not catalogued within §995(a)(1)(A))
- Berardi v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 476 (2007) (irregularities in grand jury proceedings should be closely scrutinized because defense lacks participation)