Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grand Jury topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand jury bill draws clash: proponents call it the 'people's panel,' officials warn of secrecy risks
Summary
Supporters of HB 16‑39 urged restoring grand‑jury investigatory and presentment powers, adding juror handbooks and enabling citizen referrals; sheriffs and defense lawyers warned the bill would convert a criminal investigative tool into a broad civil oversight mechanism with secrecy and evidentiary limits.
CONCORD — The Judiciary Committee considered HB 16‑39, a proposal to modernize and clarify grand‑jury powers, provide juror handbooks, and enable citizen‑initiated inquiries and presentments on topics of public concern.
Representative Diane Kelly, the sponsor, framed the bill as statutory recognition of duties grand jurors already possess. Jason Gerhard, who has produced educational materials for grand jurors, told the committee the grand jury can serve as a community‑controlled investigatory body; he cited historical examples and urged routine juror instruction.
Opponents including the New Hampshire Sheriffs’ Association and several practicing lawyers cautioned the panel that grand juries are secret, one‑sided proceedings and that issuing noncriminal presentments or reports without evidentiary testing could be misleading or unfair. Attorney Richard Sampero, who practices criminal defense and served as an interim judicial‑council director, said the rules of evidence do not apply in grand jury proceedings and that presentments lacking a probable‑cause standard would be unreliable for civil oversight.
The committee asked for additional drafting and testimony; members flagged competing visions (civil oversight vs. criminal indictments) and asked whether juror education alone might address some concerns.
