Pick-a-pal In The Real World

Regarding "Pick-a-pal grand jury problem may finally be getting a solution", (Sunday City & State), columnist Jill Falkenberg bemoans a practice that "lets elected judges pick pals who pick other pals to make life-altering decisions in the criminal justice system." 

 

She then offers the following example to establish what she sees as a bias towards pick-a-pal by Republicans: "Imagine the Internal Revenue Service let a citizen panel decide who would be audited, and the ruling party in Washington, currently the Democrats, kept stocking that panel with ACORN activists, MSNBC staffers and Michael Moore devotees."

 

It's funny that Falkenberg would try to drive her point home by citing the completely theoretical scenario above, when she could cite a home grown example right here in Texas.  I'm referring, of course, to the serial attempts over the past decade by Democrat prosecutors to cherry pick sympathetic grand juries to criminalize the activities of their Republican opponents.  It started with Ronnie Earl's creepy obsession with Tom Delay in 2005 over the interpretation of obscure campaign finance laws.  It continues today with the attempt by Earl's minion Rick McCrum to send Governor Rick Perry to prison because he tried to fire Democrat prosecutor Rosemarie Lehmberg for threatening police officers who arrested her for driving drunk.

 

There's three stark differences between Falkenberg's fantasy scenario and the real world.  First, the "pick a pal" jurors in Texas that she rails against are not rabid partisans, they are devoted public servants and responsible citizens from across the political spectrum.  Second, they at least devote themselves to prosecuting real crimes like murder, not political crimes like inconveniencing Democrats.  Third, for all of her self-proclaimed "bellyaching", she has never presented evidence of a single juror or jury that showed bias against one defendant, or favoritism to another.  One might assume that if the practice was so rampant, it wouldn't be that hard to do.

 

Finally, is it inconceivable that instead of replacing the current system, we might reform it?  Reasonable folks can agree that a jury selection system not based on random picks has the potential for bias, but the concept of "professional jurors" has real merits, and has been practiced around the world in some capacity for centuries.  It occurs to me that in keeping a spotlight on the system, Ms. Falkenberg might end up improving it.

 

Pete Smith

Houston, TX