Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citizens petition grand jury amendment draws large public turnout and sharp opposition from prosecutors
Summary
Representative Tom Millett’s HB 460 would let county citizens impanel a grand jury by petition; dozens of proponents—citing perceived judicial overreach and unprosecuted crimes—testified in favor, while sheriffs and county attorneys warned low signature thresholds could enable politicized prosecutions and undercut prosecutorial discretion.
Representative Tom Millett told the committee that House Bill 460 would allow Montanans to convene a county grand jury by citizen petition, restoring what he described as a people's oversight mechanism currently limited by judicial discretion. "Today, I bring for your consideration House Bill 4 60, a bill that will allow a grand jury to be empaneled in a county by petition of the citizens therein," Millett said, summarizing provisions for petition thresholds, the grand jury’s authority to compel counsel and remedies if a county attorney refuses to prosecute.
A long lineup of proponents — county residents, former commissioners, advocacy groups and victims’ advocates — testified in favor, sharing anecdotes about local prosecutors declining to bring charges and arguing citizen impaneling would provide accountability and a path for investigations they believe the local system has declined to pursue. Bart Crabtree of the Montana Citizens Council on Judicial Accountability cited U.S. Supreme Court commentary describing the grand jury as an institution of the people and urged the committee to restore citizen access.
Opposition came from the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association. Nanette Gilbertson testified the petition thresholds in the bill were too low in some counties (for example, the bill's percentage calculations translate to a few hundred signatures in Cascade or Dawson counties) and warned that a citizen‑driven grand jury process could be used by special interests or for political vendettas, producing forced prosecutions or undermining prosecutorial discretion.
Committee members asked about signature threshold selection and what would happen if a county attorney refused to prosecute an indictment returned by a citizen‑impaneled grand jury; proponents said thresholds were negotiable, and supporters argued remedies included referral to the attorney general or use of private counsel retained by the grand jury. The sponsor urged a do‑pass and said he would work to refine numeric thresholds before further action. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript.
