Contributed by David Haeg
(Excerpt of Alaska Judicial Council 1987 report, made at the request of the Alaska State Senate)
In response to instructions from the court or the district attorney, or in response to petitions or requests from the public, or on the initiative of a majority of the members of the grand jury, the grand jury may investigate concerns affecting the public welfare or safety. These public welfare or safety concerns may arise from criminal or potentially criminal activity, or they may involve noncriminal public welfare or safety matters. After completing its investigation, if the grand jury has found sufficient evidence to charge an individual or individuals with a crime, the grand jury may ask the district attorney to prepare an indictment or indictments.
'Public welfare or safety' has been interpreted very broadly and includes concerns with public order, health, or morals. Black’s Law Dictionary defines general welfare as 'the governments concern for the health, peace, morals, and safety of its citizens.' 'Suspend' is defined in case law and by Black’s as 'to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay or hinder.' In other words, the Alaska Constitution gives grand juries the power to investigate into and make recommendations addressing virtually anything of public concern. This broad general power can never be hindered or delayed.
The Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights of the Alaska Constitutional Convention submitted a proposal entitled “Grand Juries, Indictments and Information”. The clause that addressed the investigative function read:
…the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.
The commentary of the section stated: “The grand jury is preserved, for all purposes, particularly for investigation of public officials.”
The grand jury once a year investigates the jails (under territorial law) and sometimes is useful where any particular fraud or general scandal has occurred… (Rivers, 1323)
…I am against the use of a grand jury in criminal prosecution…I would say retain the grand jury all right for investigative purposes of officials in public institutions…it serves no useful purpose except for just investigative purposes. (Taylor, 1324)
The grand jury should certainly and definitely be preserved as an investigatory agency. There is no question about it at all… (Hellenthal, 1325)
The debate suggests that some votes for mandatory grand jury indictment may have been cast to assure free exercise of the grand jury’s investigative function:
…[I]t is true the investigative grand jury had been preserved in the bill as set forth here. However, an investigative grand jury will only be called under certain specific circumstances, and somebody is going to have to find conditions pretty bad before an investigative grand jury will be called. Whereas a grand jury which is empaneled regularly, once or twice a year in our division, has full investigative power as well as the power to consider indictments. The grand jury is there and may take any step that it feels may be necessary towards investigations. (Davis, 1326)
…The grand jury in its investigative power as well as for the fact that it is sitting there as a panel sometimes is the only recourse far a citizen to get justice…(Kilcher, 1328)
