This was a reasoned breakdown from a friend of my who is an attorney. Not really a judgement either way, just that he's never seen anything like this.
"
After hearing all the evidence that the Prosecutor cares to present (there is no requirement that potentially defense friendly evidence be presented, and in my experience, it rarely is presented), they determine whether charges should issue. Because Grand Juries sometimes return a result that doesn't result in a person receiving criminal charges -- such as the case of two of the three officers in the Taylor case -- the proceedings are sealed, and the jurors sworn to secrecy. Imagine, if you will, where John Doe's reputation gets torpedoed because a lot of ugly information was presented to the grand jury, but it wasn't sufficient to bring charges. In that case, John Doe certainly wants his information to remain confidential. But the evidence presented is controlled entirely by the prosecutor. It's also not subject, usually, to rules of admissibility that apply at trial.
The prosecutor has wide latitude to present whatever they feel is appropriate. In most cases, this is believed to be a fairly independent process, because the prosecutor has to meet a certain burden of proof, although that burden is very, very low. If charges are issued, then the subject of the investigation becomes a defendant, is served charges and arrested, has bail set, and then proceeds to a trial or a plea like you've seen on a thousand or more police or attorney TV shows, more or less. Especially in cases where officers are accused of wrongdoing, however, there comes a credibility problem. One would like to assume that the prosecutor would zealously and forthrightly present the evidence against the officers, and that the persons in charge of the investigation (like internal affairs) did their jobs even more zealously than they would if it was Joe Drug Dealer they were investigating.
If one could be assured that was the case, then the grand jury's determination not to bring charges against the other two officers in this case would have to suffice. HOWEVER, given the current climate around police driven internal investigations, and this case in particular, one might be skeptical. When the charges -- or lack thereof were announced -- the Attorney General made it very clear that not only did his independent investigation clear the officers of wrongdoing, but that the Grand Jury concurred in this result. That's an interesting statement itself, because most often what happens in these cases is the grand jury is presented with the results of the investigation, they don't conduct an investigation themselves, so they are somewhat reliant upon what is fed to them. It also bears noting that, under PA law, grand jurors often are permitted to ask questions of witnesses directly, which they are not permitted to do at trial. I have no idea whether the same is permitted in Kentucky, but it might prove interesting to learn that.
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, seem to provide a treasure trove of information. They point to quotations by the AG, with very little in the way of context. However, one might reasonably infer that the "Grand Juror" bringing the pleading to the court feels those quotes are inaccurate.
For paragraph 5, the juror points out the AG declined to answer whether he made a recommendation to the Grand Jury. Again, in my experience in PA, the provision of a recommendation from the prosecutor is standard operating procedure. The prosecutor says that they recommend or request the Grand Jury issue charges, and the Grand Jury typically does as the prosecutor requests -- usually because they have a mountain of evidence in support of the charges by that point. My read is the AG declined to answer because he wanted the appearance that the Grand Jury arrived at the same conclusion as his investigation independently of that investigation. The fact that the Grand Juror is now using that assertion may indicate that they feel the grand jury was given a recommendation, and that they were less independent than the AG would have you believe.
The AG similarly deflected when asked if the Grand Jury heard from the other 12 alleged witnesses to the incident at Ms. Taylor's apartment. According to statements from the attorney for her family, these 12 alleged witnesses would indicate that they never heard the officers announce their identities before shots were fired. The AG's quote is, again, telling, It's mumbo jumbo -- by failing to answer the question directly and instead reframing it the way he does, it certainly seems like he's corroborating the statement by the family attorney that says these 12 alleged witnesses never testified before the Grand Jury. For the Juror to be bringing this up suggests that had the Grand Jury heard from other witnesses, the resulting charges might have been very different indeed. One wonders, for instance, that if the Grand Jury believed the officers didn't announce their identities before shots were fired, whether the outcome of the charges against the officers might have been significantly different.
Paragraph 7 asks about "lesser included offenses" that the grand jurors might have considered. The AG suggested that they had the full range of charges available to them. For the juror to be suggesting that this statement was somehow problematic, it could be a number of things. It may be that the charges were not explained clearly enough, that questions from the jurors to clarify them were unanswered, or that they possible charges and the necessary elements were never presented to the jury at all.
The only way any of this is reviewed is if the transcripts of the record of the proceedings are released. Then independent persons will have the ability to review the evidence; to see if the charges were explained clearly; to see if the 12 alleged witnesses' stories were presented accurately, and to see for themselves whether the AG made a specific charging recommendation.
All of THAT being said, this seems to be uncharted territory. The juror is requesting a declaratory judgment action. I don't know specifics of KY law, but under PA, that's a procedure to be used when a person's rights to relief are unclear. In this case, Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 set out the reason why the juror believes the Judge should unseal the record in this matter. It boils down to a fear that the Jurors are being used to shield law enforcement, and the AG in particular, from responsibility for their decisions.
The juror expresses that they and their brethren will be subject to "persecution, condemnation, retribution and torment" if the record is unsealed. That's an interesting notion, except that Grand Juror's identities are also secret, and protected from disclosure, if I recall correctly, so fears of retribution might be tenuous at best. Paragraph 20 gets REALLY interesting. The juror wants to talk about "charges that were NOT presented to the Grand Jury. . . explanations of the law that were NOT given to the grand jurors. . . defenses or justifications that were NOT detailed during the proceedings. . .witnesses that did NOT testify . . . etc."
This underscores that the Grand Juror has a story to tell. And that raises another specter -- that the juror wants the confidentiality breached because this is of national interest and they want to make a pretty penny off of a book deal or some such. If it's more altruistic than that -- that the Grand Juror believes there was dirty pool and is trying to shed some light on it, then things could get very interesting. The supervising Judge will have some significant insight into that -- they presided over the grand jury, and know whether the AG did a decent job, or whether it was an effort to whitewash the liability of the officers from the beginning.
But there's a first hurdle -- the juror has to convince the judge that they have standing to bring the matter -- that they have a right to be heard. It's a novel approach, as far as I know.
The AG will almost certainly argue that they don't; and if the Grand Juror wins that point, then things are going to get SUPER interesting in Kentucky."