Defense argues grand jury process flawed due to prosecutor influence in case

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts convened on May 9, 2025, to hear arguments in the case of Dean Tran v. Commonwealth, SJC-13641, focusing on the integrity of the grand jury process. The discussions centered on the role of prosecutors in influencing grand jury proceedings and the implications of potential biases among jurors.

During the hearing, the defense attorney argued that the prosecutor's actions compromised the independence of the grand jury. He emphasized that while the prosecutor may have intended to screen for bias, failing to obtain judicial approval for dismissing a juror undermined the grand jury's structural integrity. The attorney contended that this situation could lead to a grand jury acting merely as a "rubber stamp" for the prosecution, rather than an independent body capable of scrutinizing charges.

The defense highlighted historical practices regarding grand jury indictments, noting that the original two-step process required jurors to approve charges drafted by attorneys. The current practice, where prosecutors can influence which evidence is presented and which jurors are included, raises concerns about the fairness of the process. The attorney argued that if jurors are excluded based on their opinions or questions, it threatens the grand jury's ability to operate independently.

In response to questions from the court, the defense maintained that even if a juror favored the defendant, the integrity of the process must be upheld. He asserted that it is his duty to challenge any errors in the process, regardless of the potential implications for his client.

The discussion also touched on issues of legislative privilege, with the defense arguing that evidence related to the senator's communications and actions should not be included in the indictment. He called for the indictment to be dismissed without prejudice, citing the importance of protecting privileged legislative communications.

The court's deliberations on these matters will have significant implications for the future of grand jury proceedings in Massachusetts, particularly regarding the balance of power between prosecutors and jurors. The outcome of this case could reshape the standards for ensuring unbiased and independent grand jury processes in the state.