Monroe v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 29 April 1971 |
| Citation | 94 Cal.Rptr. 531,17 Cal.App.3d 280 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eason MONROE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Warren S. GARRETT et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 37094. |
John D. Maharg, County Counsel, and Robert C. Lynch, Asst. County Counsel (Los Angeles County), for defendants and appellants.
A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand and Laurence R. Sperber, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal by Warren S. Garrett, Adele M. Gomez and Arthur J. Fitzgerald, members of the 1968 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, from a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff requiring defendants to reimburse the County of Los Angeles in the sum of six cents, and from an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. 1
Plaintiff brought the action as a taxpayer and representative of all taxpayers in Los Angeles County for reimbursement by The only parts of the lengthy report and press release 2 that were challenged were the Grand Jury's recommendations that:
the Grand Jury for [17 Cal.App.3d 282] the amounts spent by it in making certain recommendations in its report and in a press release. It is alleged that these expenditures were beyond the authority of defendants as grand jurors.
(1) The Educational Opportunities Program be closely examined to determine if qualified persons are being required by any persons or organizations to commit themselves to engage in militant campus activities as a condition precedent to acceptance into such college program, and
(2) After a faculty or student member has been bound over for trial in the superior court after a preliminary hearing or is indicted for a felony offense based upon criminal activity occurring at or adjacent to an educational facility such faculty member or student be suspended by the appropriate administrative head of such educational facility until the criminal charges have been resolved by trial, plea or dismissal.
The 1968 Grand Jury made the above recommendations after inquiring into three criminal cases involving large numbers of public offenses committed on college and high school campuses. These three criminal cases had been brought before the Grand Jury by the district attorney. Following hearings on these cases the Grand Jury returned indictments; trial was had, and numerous defendants were found guilty of various charges including conspiracy, false imprisonment, kidnaping, assault, disturbing the peace, malicious mischief, and trespassing. 3
In two of the above cases (People v. Parks and People v. Apo) most of the defendants were engaged in the educational opportunities program at two of the state colleges located in Los Angeles County. The Grand Jury expressed a belief that persons who were accepted into the educational opportunities program were required to make a commitment to engage in militant activities in order to be accepted into the program. In the third case (People v. Castro) the Grand Jury was informed that defendant, a faculty member in the Los Angeles city school system, had been reinstated to a high school teaching position while charged with criminal acts on a high school campus.
The report and press release were made by the Grand Jury for the purpose of reducing crime. No independent investigation was made by it into the administration of colleges and high schools, and all facts used in the report and press release were gathered at hearings in criminal cases presented to the Grand Jury by the district attorney. There is no objection by plaintiff to the remainder of the report and press release.
The only issues before the court are whether the above recommendations in the report and press release were beyond the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, and if so, whether the Grand Jury is liable for the return of money spent in the course of making these recommendations. It must be pointed out that the wisdom of the report and press release is not before this court. We are called on only to determine the legality of those documents.
Defendants' acts were not beyond their authority as grand jurors. The Grand Jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county. (Pen.Code, § 917; People v. Beatty (1860) 14 Cal. 566.) Although the Grand Jury should not engage in fishing expeditions of its own, the Attorney General has the authority to direct the Grand Jury to investigate matters of public interest. (Pen.Code, § 923; (1962) 2 Santa Clara Lawyer, 78, 82; see also Samish v. Superior Court (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 685 Plaintiff relies on the case of Board of Trustees of Calaveras Unified School Dist. v. Leach (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 281, 288, 65 Cal.Rptr. 588. In the Leach case the court held that a Grand Jury investigation into the evaluation of certified school employees, As a matter of routine and not in connection with public offenses or official misconduct, constituted an unwarranted interference with the affairs of the school board. Unlike the Leach case, in the case at bench the recommendations were not made as a matter of routine but were made in connection with bona fide inquiries into public offenses on campuses. Leach does not support plaintiff's theory of the case.
83 P.2d 305.) Even if the Grand Jury cannot initiate investigations and make recommendations it can investigate and make recommendations if the investigation grows out of legitimate inquiry into criminal or corrupt activity. ((1964) 52 Cal.L.Rev. 116, 122, 123.)
Plaintiff relies, also, on Application of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (D.C.N.Y.1953) 111 F.Supp. 858, 864, and on Hammond v. Brown (D.C.Ohio 1971) 323 F.Supp. 326 (decided January 28, 1971). Not only are those cases decided under provisions relating to Grand Juries which are not shown to be the same as those in California, but they involve totally different forms of report. In both of those cases, the Grand Jury had made specific and detailed charges of criminal activity against identified persons. To hold that, if a Grand Jury has data supporting that sort of report, it should act by returning indictments which then afford the individuals charged with an opportunity formally to respond and clear themselves is no basis for saying that a Grand Jury cannot call attention to a situation having public importance but without charging any individual with any specific criminal act.
The only California case cited to us, or which we can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court
...on any broad basis.' " ( 1973 Grand Jury, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 437, 119 Cal.Rptr. 193, 531 P.2d 761, quoting Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284, 94 Cal.Rptr. 531.) In this connection we further remarked: "The superior court must respect the grand jury's independence of judgme......
-
People v. Superior Court (1 Grand Jury)
...out its authorized investigations and reporting on its findings and recommendations. As the court in Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284, 94 Cal.Rptr. 531, 533--534, recently observed: 'In our system of government, a Grand Jury is the only agency free from possible political or ......
-
McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1983-1984 Grand Jury for Fresno County)
...judiciary insofar as its investigative and reporting powers are concerned. Again, our Supreme Court quotes from Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284, 94 Cal.Rptr. 531, " 'In our system of government, a grand jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias th......
-
M.C.A. v. State of California
...test: The grand jury is an inquisitional body of ancient origin. (People v. Foster, 198 Cal. 112, 120, 243 P. 667; Monroe v. Garrett, 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284, 94 Cal.Rptr. 531; People v. Pipes, 179 Cal.App.2d 547, 553, 3 Cal.Rptr. 814.) It is a "vigilant watchdog." (People v. Superior Court ......