OFFICER EXONERATED IN PUBLIC
GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
An officer-involved shooting in Santa
Clara County was recently the subject of an unprecedented public session
of the criminal grand jury, which exonerated the officer but raised
questions and concerns about how such shootings may be investigated in
future, high-profile cases. It is too early to tell whether the case
involving Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff Tom Langley is merely an
aberration in response to intense public criticism or if it is a glimpse
of things to come in response to claims of police brutality.
On March 2, 1996, Deputy Langley
attempted a vehicle stop of a suspected drunk driver. The driver,
Gustavo Soto-Mesa, led Langley and another deputy on a four-mile
pursuit, running stop signs and traffic signals. The pursuit ended only
when Soto-Mesa crashed his van between a parked boat trailer and an
ambulance and fire truck that were partially blocking a narrow street in
San Jose.
As Langley approached the van with his
Colt .45 semiautomatic in the cocked and locked position in his right
hand, Soto-Mesa ignored his orders to "freeze" and "get
down." Soto-Mesa climbed out of the partially-opened van window and
began to walk quickly away with Langley close behind him.
When Langley reached out to grab
Soto-Mesa's shirt with his left hand, one or both of the men tripped and
they fell together to the sidewalk. There was a "pop" as they
fell. It wasn't until Langley had handcuffed Soto-Mesa that he realized
that the "pop" was the sound of his weapon discharging, and
that Soto-Mesa had been shot in the head.
The local media seized upon the story -
"Fleeing Driver Fatally Shot by Deputy;" "Family Members
Want to Know Why Deputy Shot Unarmed Suspect;" "Coroner
Confirms Man Shot In Back Of Head By Deputy;" "Killing By
Deputy Has No Apparent Justification."
Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen an
execution-style killing. Local Hispanic and human rights groups staged
protests, called for public hearings into the matter, and demanded that
Langley be criminally prosecuted for Soto-Mesa's death. Langley was
represented by LDF Panel Attorney Gail Kavanagh of Carroll, Burdick
& McDonough.
The case apparently posed a
dilemma for the District Attorney. It is the policy of Santa
Clara County, as in some other jurisdictions, that
officer-involved fatalities are routinely referred to the grand
jury to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
But grand jury proceedings are usually
closed to the public and completely confidential - so much so that the
targeted defendant is not even allowed to have his or her attorney
present during questioning.
It seemed clear that there would be no
indictment against Langley - all the credible evidence showed that the
shooting was accidental. But the grand jury’s failure to indict after
a closed session would inevitably give rise to accusations of an
official cover-up of racism and brutality.
In an apparent effort to quell the
expected public outcry in the event that the grand jury declined to
indict Langley, the District Attorney invoked a little known statute,
Penal Code section 939.1, which provides for a public session of the
grand jury where "the court, or the judge thereof, finds that the
subject matter of the investigation affects the genera public welfare,
involving the alleged corruption, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office
or dereliction of duty of public officials.."
The Santa Clara County Superior Court
granted the request of the District Attorney and the grand jury
foreperson to open the grand jury proceedings to the public on the
grounds that "the investigator affects the general public welfare
involving allegations made by members of the community that a county law
enforcement officer may have been derelict in the performance of his
duty while attempting to apprehend Gustavo Soto-Mesa."
The grand jury proceedings, which
convened on June 18, 1996, were unlike any other type of public legal
proceedings - although they retained some of the characteristics of a
usual grand jury investigation, they also resembled the prosecution's
detailed presentation of physical and scientific evidence in a
full-blown criminal trial, but without any of the familiar mechanisms
designed to ensure due process at trial.
A grand jury investigation is usually an
abbreviated proceeding in which the prosecutor, acting as the grand
jury's legal advisor, presents only such evidence as is necessary to
support or negate an indictment. All questioning is by the prosecutor
and the grand jurors and evidence is often presented by way of summary
rather than by live testimony.
The targeted defendant is not permitted
to present a defense or to cross-examine witnesses. As its legal
advisor, the prosecutor is expected to present all relevant evidence -
both inculpatory and exculpatory. As a result, the outcome of the grand
jury's inquiry will obviously be influenced by the biases and
convictions that the prosecutor has developed about the case.
Grand jury investigations of
officer-involved shootings usually take as little as a couple of hours
to a couple of days in very complex cases. In contrast to the usually
abbreviated process, the investigation into the Langley case took nearly
five days.
Under intense public scrutiny, Deputy
District Attorney Dale Sanderson was careful to avoid potential claims
that any evidence or witness was omitted which could have,
affected the outcome of the investigation. Even a relatively minor issue
such as establishing the amount of alcohol and drugs in Soto-Mesa's
blood required the testimony of five witnesses.
Everyone who claimed to have seen or
heard anything relevant were called to testify - including those whose
testimony was so patently inaccurate or false that they would never be
called at a criminal trial because their stories would crumble under
cross-examination. Over five days, the grand jury heard exhaustive
testimony regarding the physical evidence
which contradicted every claim that the
shooting was intentional and which led to the only rational conclusion -
that Langley, a 16-year veteran with an impeccable service record
neither intentionally nor recklessly killed Soto-Mesa.
In his closing summary, Sanderson advised
the grand jury that it "would not be appropriate" to return an
indictment. The grand jury took less than an hour to deliberate and
agree.
It is difficult to tell as yet whether
other jurisdictions will seize upon the public grand jury as a means for
responding to community concerns about incidents of alleged excessive
force. On the one hand, some argue that public proceedings may help to
reassure a community that is anxious and angry over perceived law
enforcement abuses. (It was not, however, apparent in the local media
following the grand jury's decision in this case that the public was at
all reassured by the process.)
On the other hand, the advantages to such
proceedings in most cases will not justify their cost - both to the
public which pays the bill for extended and unnecessary proceedings and
to the officer who must endure such an ordeal. Although the public
proceedings in this case were probably not inherently dangerous, given
the prosecutor's competent presentation of the evidence and his stated
conviction that an indictment would be inappropriate, the risks involved
in opening such proceedings to the public may vary widely from
case-to-case.
The view of the case that the
grand jury and the public get is solely that of the prosecutor - and in
a high-profile case, a prosecutor may feel compelled to appease public
sentiment against the officer and may certainly be loath to state in a
public forum that he or she believes an indictment is unwarranted. Grand
jurors, too, are likely to feel the pressure of public scrutiny which
could sway them against a subject officer.
One thing, however, seems certain - that
in those jurisdictions which have no regular public forum for official
investigation of officer-involved critical incidents, this case will be
cited in support of arguments in favor of public grand jury proceedings.
Indeed, the language of PC Section 939.1 would seem to apply to any
high-profile of excessive force claim, as such claims will likely be
considered to "affect the general public welfare" and involve
allegations of "malfeasance in office or dereliction of duty"
of a police officer.
LDF Home Page | News Article Index
