Blake mentions that is it important to note that a grand jury often hears multiple cases. She then also mentions about how a grand jury is different, and that Idaho Rule 6.1B provides, in part, the "prosecuting attorney the power and duty to investigate and inquire whether or not there are grounds for disqualification for any grand juror". And "it advises the potential juror the possible disqualification of a juror". She adds (BBM)
"that the voir dire process is very different than through the trial proceedings, there is actually no inherent right under the Idaho Criminal Rules that the prosecuting attorney even has the opportunity to conduct voir dire. In this situation the prosecuting attorney did have that opportunity, but it is not specifically the prosecuting attorney has the right or duty at the commencement or presentation of an investigation. That is is large part because a grand jury may sit and hear multiple cases and each case may be different. A grand juror may have disqualification for one case but able to sit for other cases and evidence.
(BBM) Judge Boyce interjects and adds "And Ms. Blake I think that's an important point to consider....so you're indicating that, because clearly in a trial with petit (grand) juror you have a vetting of the jurors conducted by both sides. A grand jury proceeding obvi the Defense is not present and there still needs to be some sort of 'gatekeeper' function-" (Prior starts nodding his head in agreement it seems). Judge continues, "to make sure you have fair an unbiased jurors that sit as grand jurors. So you are saying that Idaho Code 1003 there is a different standard applied to challenging grand jurors....essentially vetting out jurors that may not be qualified?"
Blake says this Rule outlines specific challenges that can be made to potential grand jurors, it has 7 possible challenges. She also says the Defendant's brief specifically reference the grounds for challenge 1900-2020 (note - I may have captured this incorrectly, I think I have the # wrong) in which the "challenges are actually different". She continues "and from what the State can discern looking through caselaw it appears that a large part of that differentiation that grand jurors are only making a probable cause determination....We can find no caselaw to support that the same standards would be applicable to the scene of a grand jury."
Judge Boyce then asks "I appreciate your response. So to summarize essentially a 'lower standard' for seating a petit juror versus a trial juror?
Blake answers "Yes.....it does appear to be a lesser standard because there are other remedies available."
(may not be verbatim I am typing as quick as I can). IMO I am not sure why mentioning that the Defense does not get to question these potential jurors AND that the same questioning process for potential grand jurors is not the same as a trial juror.......I do not see how that helps the State's argument. I agree with
@sassyblue that their office is 'woefully understaffed'.
