Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Victim testimony, supporters and attorneys debate changes to citizen grand jury petition process
Loading...
Summary
HB2529 would modify the citizen grand jury by-petition process by adding pre‑screening, petitioner immunity and limits on diversion and prosecutorial participation; victims and proponents urged the changes while committee members asked procedural and separation-of-powers questions.
The House Judiciary Committee heard extended testimony on HB2529, a bill that revises the citizen grand jury by-petition process. Adviser Jason Thompson summarized several of the bill’s key changes, including a prescreening step by a judge before petitions circulate, immunity for the initiating person and signers acting in good faith, new procedures for selecting counsel for a citizen impaneling, and a prohibition on diversion agreements for true bills returned by a citizen grand jury.
Several proponents testified in person. Mandy Smith of McPherson County spoke about her family's experience seeking accountability after her daughter’s 2018 sexual assault: "My name is Mandy Smith of McPherson County, Kansas, and I am appearing in support of HB 2,529 concerning the amendments to the citizen grand jury by petition process," she said, describing a case in which she said the county attorney initially declined to file charges and the family turned to the citizen grand jury process. Smith said the petition process they pursued encountered procedural obstacles and that current law offers no statutory mechanism to appeal a court’s procedural rulings.
Senator Scott Hill told the committee he supports preserving the citizen grand jury as an historical safety valve, arguing citizens need tools when the system appears unresponsive. Eric Rucker, an experienced former prosecutor and public official, described multiple instances where citizen-initiated grand juries produced true bills and investigations the regular prosecutorial process did not pursue.
Committee members pressed proponents on practical and constitutional questions: how attorneys submitted by the initiating person would be qualified, whether and when a local prosecutor could intervene or preempt a citizen petition, and what the bill’s prohibition on diversion would mean if a citizen grand jury had its own counsel. Jason Thompson pointed to specific bill language designating licensed Kansas attorneys for submission and described the written-notice procedure requiring a prosecuting attorney to tell the court within 30 days whether they will prosecute; if the prosecutor fails to pursue the case or notifies the court they will not prosecute, the grand jury may reconvene and by majority vote request the attorney general prosecute.
Several written-only testimonies from the attorney general and others were submitted to the committee record. The committee closed the hearing without taking a final committee vote that day.
