Chelsea Manning and the Grand Jury

Chelsea Manning returned to jail recently for not agreeing to appear before a grand jury investigating Wikileaks and its release of information during the 2016 presidential election. For the uninitiated Chelsea Manning originally made headlines for being court martialed for espionage for releasing 750,000 U.S. government documents ranging from diplomatic cables to unclassified documents of a sensitive nature to wikileaks. She served in prison in various facilities from 2010 to 2017 when her 35 year sentence was commuted. After release she came out as transgender. 
Lately, she has been back in the spotlight for her protest against testifying to the Grand Jury investigating Wikileaks. She does not want to testify and she has now been put back in prison for not testifying to this grand jury who is after Wikileaks. They want her to answer additional questions. She maintains that she answered all the questions she could during the previous military action. However, her protest is not merely against her testimony but against the Grand Jury process itself. Grand Juries have a long history stretching back to America’s earliest days. 

The Grand Jury

Grand Juries are usually convened to hear evidence in secret during an investigation and make decisions on indictments and determine if a crime has been committed. Because their proceedings are secret, prosecutors and investigators can speak freely during the process and the Grand Jury can issue subpoenas to compel testimony. Grand Juries are usually created and sat for a term, federal Grand Juries can sit for as long as 18 months with 3 continuances that can add up to 54 months or almost 4 years . Chelsea Manning has pointed out that the principle of double jeopardy (you can’t be tried for the same thing twice) does not apply to Grand Juries. One of the criticisms of the Grand Jury process is their secrecy. What goes on behind those doors can only be released by the special order of a judge. 

According to Chelsea Manning, the grand jury envisioned by the Founding Fathers was more resistant to laws and unjust proceedings. A Grand Jury was often a citizens committee that would look into crimes and laws affecting citizens. The modern grand jury tends to be a tool of prosecutors and other government arms who are looking find a crime that someone has committed. This became especially true during McCarthyism. Her letter about this is fascinating and you can read it in full. 

Juries, Investigations, and Prosecutors

I find this case rather fascinating. Wikileaks has been an avatar for free speech and breaking open the shroud of secrecy that often surrounds modern governments. We would have no idea about the NSA spying program without Wikileaks. The Panama Papers most likely would have never been released if it weren’t for Wikileaks. However, it can be dangerous, given some of the more sensitive things that the Federal government can often be engaged in, to release such information. People’s lives can often be at stake.

Before this article, I had not investigated the institution of the Grand Jury. However, Manning brings up some solid points about the Grand Jury process. Prosecutors have a great deal of power in what the jury does or does not see and the Grand Jury can become a rubber stamp to give prosecutors legitimacy in charging people with crimes, especially political activists.

Manning is working on principle and not necessarily within the confines of what she might ordinarily be legally required to do. Instead, she is protesting the principle of a secretive process that shields prosecutors for public scrutiny. This can be especially true it cases when it comes to drugs and sensitive government matters.

The American criminal justice system rarely works in favor of victims and even less so for those accused. Once the criminal justice system sets its sights on an idea or a person, very little can be done to stop it. As Manning points out in her letter, prosecutors often have an agenda and that agenda doesn’t always coincide with with the truth.

A Cause for Reform

Manning is paying for her protest of this process and ideas of reform. She is being fined $1000 a day for not testifying and she has been deprived over her freedom. Understanding the Grand Jury process shows that this is an area in need of reform. These proceedings should not be so secret and they should not be a rubber stamp for prosecutors. The American criminal justice system is desperate need for reform and this is yet another area where new reform is required.