Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 14, 1993 TAG: 9301140228
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOSEPH COSCO LANDMARK NEWS SERVICE
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium
ROBB DECISION BOOSTS OBSERVERS' FAITH IN GRAND JURIES
SEN. ROBB'S EXPERIENCE proves that not all grand juries are "rubber stamps," a former federal prosecutor says.
A federal grand jury's refusal to indict Sen. Charles Robb is the exception that proves the system - for the most part - works.
In the vast majority of cases in federal court, if a prosecutor seeks an indictment at least 12 grand jurors will oblige.
The Robb grand jury did indict more than 150 other people during its 18-month term. And on Tuesday, it signed off on an indictment against Robb's former friend, Virginia Beach hotelier Bruce Thompson. In that indictment the grand jury alleged Robb was involved in disclosing an illegal tape of a phone call made by Gov. Douglas Wilder and trying to cover it up.
But the grand jury refused to indict Robb. Why?
Several former federal prosecutors said the grand jury may have been reluctant to indict because the target was Chuck Robb, U.S. senator. Had it been a low-profile private citizen, there probably would have been an indictment, they say.
"I'm sure the grand jurors were aware that merely an indictment would be far more damaging to Senator Robb than it would for a normal person," said Hunter W. Sims of Norfolk, who worked in the U.S. attorney's office in the 1970s. "I think they chose not to indict Senator Robb because he was not involved in procuring the tape."
William Cummings of Alexandria, a former U.S. attorney for eastern Virginia, said: "Because Robb is such a public figure, the grand jury might have said, `Enough is enough. He probably suffered enough.' If nothing else, they realized he made a mistake, a stupid mistake, childish behavior at best. But the grand jury might have said, `Let's put this feud behind us, much like Bush did with the Irangate people.' "
Cummings said grand juries in effect can choose to ignore the law, a move known as jury nullification of the statute.
There also was the feeling among these former prosecutors that Robb helped himself considerably when he asked for and received permission to appear before the grand jury in December. Robb spent six hours before the panel, and probably profited from his straight-arrow public persona.
Another theory is that the grand jurors were swayed by media attention and favorable editorials that referred to the case as a political rather than a criminal matter. Unlike trial jurors, grand jurors are not barred from reading or hearing news accounts of the case they are handling.
Whatever the reasons - and we'll probably never know for sure because grand jurors are prohibited from discussing cases - the grand jury saw fit to break with tradition in the Robb case.
"Quite often people say the grand jury is a rubber stamp, and I've had that thought brush through my mind in certain cases," said Hunter Sims.
In more than three years as a prosecutor Sims doesn't recall one case in which a grand jury rejected an indictment he presented.
Cummings can't either.
Before grand jurors begin their term they are instructed by a judge not to act as a rubber stamp. They are reminded that the grand jury "is independent of the United States attorney and is not an arm or agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service or any governmental agency charged with prosecuting a crime."
Yet still there are abuses.
"There is potential for abuse and there have been numerous instances where there have been abuses," Cummings said.
But legal observers say that grand juries, like trial juries, are an imperfect system, but they're the best system we have.
"I have to say the system overall is a good system," Cummings said. With the Robb case, "you have to say the system proved itself."