Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Abstract

Officer-involved shootings put prosecutors in a bind. While prosecutors normally dominate the pretrial investigation and charging process, these tragedies force prosecutors to change their approach. The incident often pits the victim’s family and community, who feel the case symbolizes a biased and unjust system, against officers and departments, who feel attacked for following their training in a high-stress situation. Prosecutors seek a result that preserves their support from both groups. To resolve this quagmire, prosecutors pass the buck, asking grand jurors to make charging determinations despite their tenuous understanding of the system, their powers, or their role. Many scholars have argued that grand jurors are destined to fail at the task.
This Article explains that unique circumstances in officer-involved shootings position grand jurors well to prevent future tragedies. While prosecutors ordinarily present grand jurors only a perfunctory version of events while seeking a quick and severe charge, prosecutors approach officer-involved shootings with greater care. They conduct thorough investigations and make complete evidentiary presentations that may last for months. Prosecutors then limit the grand jurors’ choices to an up-or-down vote on indictment, hoping either result will shield the prosecutors from criticism. But through those detailed evidentiary presentations, grand jurors—unelected, individual citizens with minimal political motivations— develop a deep understanding of these tragic cases. Grand jurors are transformed from laypeople to experts; they learn both what caused this shooting and what might stop the next.
Grand jurors in officer-involved shootings should be empowered to do far more than simply vote on indictment. They should know they can expand their investigatory ambit, comment on substantive law that favors officers, publicly report their views on the case and police training, or make referrals to civilian review boards. Empowering grand juries to harvest their “lay expertise” is a vital criminal justice reform.

Publication Title

Univ. Ill. L. Rev.

Volume

2025

First Page

989

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS