H.R. 5830 — Introduced in House

I 113th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5830 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 10, 2014 Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Grayson, Ms. Norton, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Clay, Ms. Lee of California, and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To provide that in the case of a law enforcement officer who uses deadly force against a person, and thereby causes the death of that person, a hearing shall be conducted before a judge to determine whether there is probable cause for the State to bring criminal charges against the law enforcement officer relating to the death of the person, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Grand Jury Reform Act of 2014. 2. Findings The Congress finds the following: (1) Grand juries are typically used as the process by which allegations of police misconduct are prosecuted. (2) There exists a symbiotic relationship between local prosecutors and the law enforcement officers who regularly testify in routine grand jury investigations. (3) The closeness of this relationship creates public suspicion that accused police officers receive preferential consideration from grand juries when they are subject to grand jury investigations. (4) Police officers have the right to appear before the grand jury investigating allegations of wrongdoing by said officer, and give testimony not subject to a thorough cross examination. (5) Grand jury proceedings are by law secret proceedings. (6) The secret grand jury process has historically resulted in a refusal to indict when the subject of their investigation is a local law enforcement officer. (7) The recent grand jury proceedings following the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have followed historical tradition, ending with a refusal to indict the law enforcement officers involved in their deaths. (8) The American people have lost confidence in the secretive grand jury process when it is used to evaluate allegations of police misconduct. (9) The loss of confidence in our system of justice leads to the undermining of the principles of equality and justice upon which this country was founded. 3. Hearing before a judge required (a) Receipt of grant funds In order for a State or unit of local government in a State to be eligible to receive Federal funding under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), the State shall comply with the requirements of this section. (b) Hearing requirement; appointment of special prosecutor In the case of a law enforcement officer who uses deadly force against a person, and thereby causes the death of that person, the Governor of the State in which the death occurred shall appoint a special prosecutor to present evidence on behalf of the State at a hearing before a judge in the appropriate court, in order to determine whether probable cause exists for the State to bring criminal charges against the law enforcement officer relating to the death of the person, which determination shall be made by the judge. The Governor shall use a random process to select the special prosecutor from among the prosecutors in the State, excluding the prosecutors of the locality in which the death took place. (c) Written determination of probable cause The judge presiding over a hearing described in subsection (b) shall issue the determination described in subsection (b) in writing, and shall submit such determination to the chief prosecutor of the locality in which the death took place. (d) Recommendations of the special prosecutor Upon the conclusion of a hearing described in subsection (b), the special prosecutor shall submit written recommendations to the chief prosecutor of the locality in which the death took place, including a recommendation regarding whether criminal charges should be brought against the law enforcement officer relating to the death of the person. (e) Court To Remain Open to the Public In a hearing described in subsection (a), the court shall remain open to the public, except as determined appropriate by the presiding judge.