History of Alaska’s Grand Jury System
Grand juries are a key component of the criminal justice system in the United States, serving as a safeguard against arbitrary or unjust prosecution by the state. In Alaska, grand juries have played an important role in the administration of justice since the early days of the territory, and continue to do so today.
The principal functions of the grand jury is to serve “as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action.”
Juries have played an important role in the history of Alaska, serving as a mechanism for investigating and bringing criminal charges against individuals. The origins of grand juries in Alaska can be traced back to the time when the territory was under the control of the Russian Empire.
During the Russian period, juries were used as a means of enforcing the law and maintaining order among the colony’s inhabitants. These grand juries were typically made up of a group of citizens who were selected by high-ranking Russian officials. They were responsible for investigating crimes, hearing testimony, and determining whether or not to bring charges against individuals accused of wrongdoing.
When Alaska became a U.S. territory in 1867, the jury system was retained and continued to be used as a means of enforcing the law. However, the process for selecting grand jury members was altered to be more in line with the U.S. system. Under this new system, grand jury members were chosen from a pool of individuals who were selected by a jury commissioner and then approved by a judge.
Three provisions in Alaska’s Criminal Rules hint at the potential investigative, recommending and reporting powers of the grand Jury. Rule 6(e) mandates the oath for grand jurors. It resembles the oath of the territorial years, as noted in the 1933 compilation of territorial laws. The current oath reads:
“You and each of you as members of this grand jury for the State of Alaska, do solemnly swear that you will diligently inquire and true presentment make of all such matters as shall be given to you for consideration, or shall otherwise come to your knowledge in connection with your present service…”
The oath clearly includes the duty to investigate “matters” coming to the knowledge of the grand jury independently of the charges presented by a prosecutor.
Grand juries continued to play an important role in Alaska’s legal system as the territory developed and grew. They were used to investigate a wide variety of crimes, including murder, theft, and embezzlement. In some cases, grand juries even played a role in investigating political corruption and other forms of misconduct.
Prior to Alaska’s statehood, the territorial legislature adopted a statute that required grand juries to investigate the conditions and management of prisons and judicial offices. In 1954, a Ketchikan grand jury investigated police corruption in connection with prostitution and returned a famous report that led to the indictments of the chief of police and the United States Attorney in Ketchikan.
On December 15, 1955, the Alaska Constitutional Committee on the Preamble and the Bill of Rights submitted Committee Proposal Seven, which included the section on grand jury authority. Proposal Seven initially provided in pertinent part: “[T]he power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith shall never be suspended.” The Convention, however, did not adopt the Proposal. Instead, the framers approved a slightly altered version of an amendment to Proposal Seven offered by Delegate Barr.
On January 6, 1956, Delegate Barr proffered the following amendment: “The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning conditions detrimental to the public welfare shall never be suspended.” This provision grants broad investigatory powers to the grand jury. Although courts in other jurisdictions disagree as to whether the power to investigate, standing alone, implies the power to report the results of such an inquiry, the Convention expressly granted Alaska grand juries the power to make recommendations in connection with its investigations. Thus, the framers contemplated a power to issue statements other than indictments. Conversations between the delegates also shed light on the proper subject matter of these recommendations. During the debates over article I, section 8, Delegate Rivers explained that the grand jury’s authority at the time of the Convention extended to the investigation of public officers and institutions. Rivers then asked Delegate Barr if he would agree to express the grand jury’s authority as the power to “investigate public offices and institutions and make recommendations.” Barr would not so consent. He stated that his amendment would grant a broader power than Rivers suggested. Barr’s amendment would allow the grand jury to “make recommendations concerning other things than public offices and officers.”‘ By implication, the framers intended, at the least, to grant the grand jury the power to issue recommendations concerning public offices and officers, something which Barr maintained was the duty of the grand jury.
As noted above, a true report on conditions concerning public welfare can be beneficial in ensuring an effective government, even if it contains incidental criticism of a public official responsible for the conditions. Indeed, the framers of the Alaska Constitution considered this power sufficiently important to preserve it in the constitution. They viewed this power as necessary “to protect the rights of… citizens.”
If the prosecutor dominates the investigation, his own ambitions can lead to a one-sided investigation and presentation of evidence. The prosecutor may initiate investigations into areas where there is no apparent corruption merely to harass certain officials or to guide the grand jury to a result he desires.
To prevent this, the grand jury should be independent and impartial in its investigation. The grand jury should seek out evidence from all relevant sources, including witnesses who can provide a different perspective on the case. This will help ensure that the grand jury’s decision is based on a complete picture of what happened and that no one person or group unduly
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CONCERNING ARTICLE I, SECTION 8.
The present province of our grand jury is to investigate public offices and institutions, not just to investigate anything involving the public welfare. I wonder if Mr. Barr is intending to try to preserve what we already have now, as the province of the grand jury. Would you consent to having it worded as “investigate public offices and institutions and make recommendations”?
RIVERS
No. I think that their power should be a little broader than that. I don’t know what the powers are right now exactly, but I do know that they make recommendations concerning other things than public offices and officers, and under this provision it would only investigate and make recommendations concerning things that endangered public welfare’s safety, and I believe that is what the grand jury is for is to protect the rights of its citizens. They do not necessarily have to defame any person or mention him by name. If the tax collector was using methods not acceptable to the public, they might make a recommendation for a change in the system of tax collection, etc., and I think it would be their duty to do so.
BARR
Is there further discussion of the proposed amendment to the amendment? Mr. Hellenthal.
PRESIDENT EGAN
Mr. President, my suggestion was that the word “detrimental” be stricken and the word “involving” be inserted because I agree with Mr. Barr that the investigatory power of a grand jury is extremely broad, not as narrow as Mr. Rivers contends. I think a grand jury can investigate anything, and it is true that there is little protection against what they call in the vernacular, a runaway grand jury, but in the history of the United States there have been few runaway grand juries, extremely few, and I think that the broad statement of power that Mr. Barr asked for is proper and healthy.
HELLENTHAL
Mr. Sundborg. [Vol. 3:295 1986]
PRESIDENT EGAN
Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Barr be amended by striking the words “detrimental to” in the second line and substituting therefore the word “involving.”
SUNDBORG
I would like to submit the same amendment but using the word “involving” instead of “detrimental to” and I ask unanimous consent for its adoption.
BARR
I second the motion.
JOHNSON
Mr. Barr moves and Mr. Johnson seconds the motion. If there is no further discussion, the question is, “Shall the proposed amendment as offered by Mr. Barr to the amendment as amended be adopted by the Convention?” All those in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment to the amendment as amended will signify by saying “aye,” all opposed by saying “no.” The “ayes” have it and the proposed amendment is ordered adopted.
PRESIDENT EGAN
Yeas: 44 – Armstrong, Awes, Barr, Boswell, Coghill, Cross, Davis, Emberg, V. Fischer, Gray, Harris, Hellenthal, Hermann, Hinckel, Hurley, Johnson, Kilcher, King, Knight, Lee, Londborg, McCutcheon, McLaughlin, McNealy, McNees, Marston, Metcalf, Nerland, Nolan, Nordale, Peratrovich, Poulsen, Reader, R. Rivers, Robertson, Rosswog, Stewart, Sundborg, Sweeney, Taylor, VanderLeest, Walsh, White, Wien. Nays: 8 – Buckalew, Doogan, H. Fischer, Laws, Riley, V. Rivers, Smith, Mr. President. Absent: 3 – Collins, Cooper, Hilscher.
In conclusion, the framers of the Alaska Constitution intended that the grand jury have the power to investigate and make recommendations on matters that concern the public welfare. They contemplated that such recommendations would contain criticism of public officials in limited circumstances.
After statehood, article I, section 8 of the Alaska Constitution granted grand juries the power to “investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety.” Grand juries have also issued reports critical of specific individuals. For example, in 1967, a Fairbanks grand jury investigated jail conditions and returned a report criticizing management of the jail generally and holding the named superintendent responsible. And in 1975, an Anchorage grand jury investigated the criminal justice system and made recommendations concerning a correctional officer, the public defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office.
In modern times, the use of grand juries in Alaska has been less frequent. This is primarily due to changes in the legal system and the increased use of other forms of investigation, such as preliminary hearings. However, grand juries are still used in certain cases, particularly when it comes to complex or high-profile crimes.
United States v. R. Enterprises US Supreme Court 498 US 292 (1991)
Unlike this Court, whose jurisdiction is predicated on a specific case or controversy, the grand jury “can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642 -643 (1950). The function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it has identified an offense or has satisfied itself that none has occurred. “A grand jury investigation `is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.’” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701 (1972), quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (1970).
The teaching of the Court’s decisions is clear: A grand jury “may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials,” id., at 343.
A grand jury need not accept on faith the self-serving assertions of those who may have committed criminal acts. Rather, it is entitled to determine for itself whether a crime has been committed. See Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S., at 642 -643.
Courts in jurisdictions favoring reports have emphasized the growing complexity of modern government “that defies the best intentions of the citizen to know and understand it.” With an ever-expanding government bureaucracy, public employees become further removed from those officials directly answerable to the voters, while the public’s awareness of the activities even of elected officials lessens. If the people are to remain confident in this type of government, there should be a body of citizens capable of monitoring official wrongdoing.
Proponents of the grand jury’s reportorial power maintain that the grand jury is the appropriate body to accomplish this important purpose. Increasing government complexity has spurred the adoption of other investigatory bodies. These include legislative and executive bodies as well as private organizations, most notably the news media. These bodies may lead to greater accountability among public officials, but they are unlikely to be as effective as the grand jury in achieving impartial disclosure of official misconduct. A comparison of the grand jury with these groups suggests that the grand jury should continue as an investigatory body.
One of the most notable examples of a grand jury in recent history in Alaska was in the case of the murder of Alaskan teenager Samantha Koenig in 2012. In that case, a grand jury was empaneled to investigate the crime and ultimately indicted the suspect.
Additionally, grand juries are also used to investigate police misconduct in the state. For example, in the case of the death of a man in the custody of the Anchorage Police Department in 2020, a grand jury was empaneled to investigate the conduct of the police officers involved.
One significant problem with legislative and executive committees is that political concerns often influence their investigations. Since the outcome is often politically influenced, there may be an intentional lack of thoroughness in legislative and executive investigations. Finally, no overseeing body exist to monitor the conduct of these investigatory bodies.
The grand jury is not without shortcomings as an investigatory body. Jurors are not professional investigators. Because grand juries have limited budgets, they seldom hire their own counsel or detectives. This increases the grand jury’s dependence on the prosecutor to perform the investigation and to conduct the proceedings. If the prosecutor is able to dominate the proceedings, he may interject his own political ambitions into the investigation.
Although some authorities suggest that grand juries are not completely free from political motivations, most agree that jurors do not have the same sensitivity to political considerations as legislative or executive committees. The subpoena power possessed by grand juries facilitates complete investigations.
Alaska Constitution, article I, section 8 provides in pertinent part: “The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.” No Alaska appellate court has addressed the meaning of this sentence.
Overall, grand juries have played a significant role in the history of Alaska. They have served as an important mechanism for investigating and bringing criminal charges against individuals accused of wrongdoing. While their use has decreased over time, they are still used in certain cases where they are considered necessary to ensure justice is served.