Thursday » August 18, 2016
The Daily Sentinel Vol. No. 117 Issue 341
• $1
❧ Home of Stephen F. Austin State University
NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS
Local: Two die in ATV accident » 1B Sports: Dragons getting an early challenge » 1C Grand juries are presented evidence in cases and decide whether to indict (true-bill) or not indict (no-bill). After surveying district attorneys, defense attorneys and newspaper professionals, The Daily Sentinel has learned the law is confusing and there is no uniform process in Texas for handling no-bills.
NO-BILLS: PUBLIC OR SECRET
THE SURVEY (Results Pages 2-3A) ➤ Question 1 In your opinion, should no-bills be a matter of public record?
➤ Question 2 Do you feel that state law is clear on its definition of no-bills in regards to public record?
➤ Question 3 Do you have access to no-bill records in your county?
➤ Question 4 Do you feel that the media should have access to no-bill records?
➤ Question 5 Does your district clerk destroy no-bill records?
➤ Question 6 Should such records be destroyed?
➤ Question 7 Do you believe that a defendant whose case has been no-billed should receive the same treatment in the media as one who has been arrested, charged, indicted and convicted or dismissed?
➤ Question 8 Do you practice law for the District Attorney’s office or as a Criminal Defense Attorney? Or are you with the media or a member of the Texas Legislation?
➤ Question 9 Please comment or expand on any of your answers. (Responses on 4A)
Should no-bills be made available for public access? Why this matters
T
he Daily Sentinel follows cases from arrest to disposition. Before a defendant can be tried, he must be indicted by a grand jury. For example, if John Doe is arrested and charged with sexual assault and indicted by grand jurors, he continues through the necessary court hearings and, ultimately, is convicted or his case is dismissed. Throughout the process, his name is published several times in the newspaper. But if he is no-billed by the grand jury — that is, he is not indicted for sexual assault — the result is not disclosed and the newspaper has no record of the disposition. Essentially, the case disappears from public view. And in some cases in which no arrests have been made, evidence is presented to grand juries to decide whether it is enough to indict them. Once they are indicted, they are arrested on warrants for those charges. But if they are no-billed, that information is not released unless the suspect’s name is known and only then will a representative from the Nacogdoches County Dis-
Classified » 1D
86/73 » 4C
trict Attorney’s Office confirm that the defendant was not indicted. That means for defendants who are not arrested and ultimately no-billed, the public may never know. Such was the case in June 2016, when allegations of a repeated sexual assault during a fraternity party here the previous month led to no arrests. Evidence against the defendant or defendants was presented to grand jurors and they were no-billed. They have not been identified. The Daily Sentinel has found through months of analysis on this issue that prosecutors, defense attorneys and others have varying interpretations and opinions on whether no-bills are public record. We have found that many newspapers obtain no-bills and publish them. Others argue that no-bills may be disclosed under a number of different circumstances, while some claim that judges make their own rules about how no-bills are handled. The law, as it stands, is confusing, and because it is confusing, counties across Texas have adopted varying
Comics » 4D Follow us
Dear Abby » 3C
DailySentinel.com
policies keeping no-bills secret or making them public. We firmly believe — as do other Texas newspaper professionals — that when a grand jury no-bills a defendant, the public should know he has not been indicted. A criminal charge and an indictment are key components of a criminal case and both are public. A no-bill is also an exceedingly important element of a criminal case. It too should be made public.
Recommendations The question of whether nonindictments are subject to the Texas Public Information Act is complicated enough. But then the issue becomes even more convoluted by broad and narrow interpretations of the Public Information Act and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. A part of that law governs how grand jurors may conduct business. It includes explicit instructions on how and when to release information from grand jury deliberations,
Obituaries » 2B
which is essentially limited to the names of defendants and the charges for which they’ve been indicted. Everything else is considered secret or confidential. That is, no member of the grand jury or court officer acting on behalf of the jurors may disclose anything from their proceedings. Grand jury deliberations are secret, but the outcome of those deliberations, like indictments, are public, and non-indictments should be no different. The Code of Criminal Procedure is not explicit in prohibiting the disclosure of no-bills. As for the Public Information Act, multiple attorney general opinions have asserted that grand juries are part of the judiciary and as such, are not subject to the Public Information Act. But attorney generals’ opinions are just that — opinions. They are neither rulings nor law. They are not binding. If they were binding, officials in the more than 250 counties in Texas would not create their own policies mandating whether — and when — no-bills are distributed to
Opinion » 3B
members of the public, including newspaper journalists. In Texas, arrest records are public record. Probable-cause affidavits are public-record. Most court documents in the possession of district clerks are public record. And indictments are public record. So it stands to reason that no-bills should also be public record. Across Texas, confusion reigns on this topic. If it is unlawful to disclose the names of defendants grand juries decline to indict, why do some jurisdictions disclose them while others make guesswork of it? Here’s one answer: Countless state laws are written like long legal notices instead of in plain English. That leaves them open to interpretation to even lawmakers and lawyers, which in turn leads to a patchwork of policies and people seeking opinions from the attorney general. It is time to end the confusion. We believe no-bills are and should be public record in Texas, and legislators should amend the law to make that clear. — The Daily Sentinel editorial board
Puzzles/Weather » 4C Sports » 1C
Call us » 564-8361 Fax us » 560-4267 Missed your paper? » 936-558-3216
7
06583
01050
3