Is a grand jury required after a shooting?

[K.Mooneyham]

Is it Texas law that a grand jury MUST be impaneled after a defensive shooting has occurred, even if the defensive shooting took place within someone's home? If someone knows this answer, can they please direct me to the appropriate part of Texas Penal Code which states this? Thank you all.

[carlson1]

I would like to know this also. It was my understanding it was up to the DA and most of them did have a GJ to take the heat off of them.

[philip964]

In a recent event here in Houston, which the news story is listed here in mean streets of Houston , 3 masked armed men broke into a Houston home and a 17 yo protected his mom and younger siblings with a shot gun, killing two of the robbers.

He was not arrested as expected, and it said it would be brought before a grand jury. I expect he will be no billed.

I assume it is a procedure to end the event legally.

Why the DA is such an important position.

I mean the two men could have been rehabilitated, this 17 yo ended that opportunity. For what, just to protect his family.

In CA that’s what they would say now.

[carlson1]

I assume it is a procedure to end the event legally.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

[03Lightningrocks]

I was involved in self defense shooting in 1996 in Dallas County. My attny. told me it was sop for them to do the grand jury thing. It was no-billed as self defense. He told me that was better than just having it hanging out there. It cost me a bloody fortune between bail and attny fees. 17K. 15K on a 150K bond. Some
+anti gun judge was presiding that week end. She referred to me as the guy driving around shooting up Dallas. I corrected her and said No, the guy protecting his 14 year old son from an attack!. It made the piece of garbage mad.

[03Lightningrocks]

I assume it is a procedure to end the event legally.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

I was told not likely unless new info came up. He said some other DA would have to see the case and decide to try and push it.

[carlson1]

I assume it is a procedure to end the event legally.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

I was told not likely unless new info came up. He said some other DA would have to see the case and decide to try and push it.

That makes good sense. I am glad it worked out for you, but being it was justified it is an injustice to be out all the money you were.

[03Lightningrocks]

I assume it is a procedure to end the event legally.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

I was told not likely unless new info came up. He said some other DA would have to see the case and decide to try and push it.

That makes good sense. I am glad it worked out for you, but being it was justified it is an injustice to be out all the money you were.

Yeah, I learned the hard way that self defense can be expensive. Thank God I had the money! 15K was the bail bonds mans cut for the 150K bond that judge put on me.

[K.Mooneyham]

Okay, "SOP" was mentioned. However, I am looking for something written in Texas law that says a grand jury MUST be impaneled, no ifs, ands, or buts, in the case of someone being shot and killed. Because if Texas law does NOT say that, then indeed it is up to the DA (or equivalent) to demand that happen. If initial investigation by law enforcement doesn't reveal anything untoward in the event, other than the obvious (home was broken into by armed criminals who were not known to the residents inside who defended themselves, nothing occurred outside the home), then why waste the money, time and effort at all?

[03Lightningrocks]

Okay, "SOP" was mentioned. However, I am looking for something written in Texas law that says a grand jury MUST be impaneled, no ifs, ands, or buts, in the case of someone being shot and killed. Because if Texas law does NOT say that, then indeed it is up to the DA (or equivalent) to demand that happen. If initial investigation by law enforcement doesn't reveal anything untoward in the event, other than the obvious (home was broken into by armed criminals who were not known to the residents inside who defended themselves, nothing occurred outside the home), then why waste the money, time and effort at all?

That would be an Attorney type question, which I am not. Maybe small towns are different. An offense where a life is taken has no statute of limitations. Maybe having a grand jury declare it as self defense is a bit of insurance. Maybe not. I would love to read an attorney opinion on this deal.

I was facing two counts of AM and AA. I was so relieved to have it no billed I would have kissed a dogs butt. The passenger in the vehicle was so flipped out he/she, testified the driver was trying to kill us. He actually said those words. He stuck a shot gun out his window and tried to get on the side of my truck where my son was. That WAS NOT gonna happen! I got him on my side and opened fire.He then decided to back off. I am the one who called the cops and reported it.

[srothstein]

Okay, "SOP" was mentioned. However, I am looking for something written in Texas law that says a grand jury MUST be impaneled, no ifs, ands, or buts, in the case of someone being shot and killed. Because if Texas law does NOT say that, then indeed it is up to the DA (or equivalent) to demand that happen. If initial investigation by law enforcement doesn't reveal anything untoward in the event, other than the obvious (home was broken into by armed criminals who were not known to the residents inside who defended themselves, nothing occurred outside the home), then why waste the money, time and effort at all?

In most cases, a DA will take a shooting to a grand jury as a form of political cover. If it is clearly self-defense, when the GJ no-bills the suspect, the DA gets covered for allowing a criminal (the shooter) to walk away with no punishment. There is always someone who wants the shooter to be punished (both extreme liberals and families of the person shot). But I know of no law requiring a shooting to go to a grand jury and am personally familiar with a few that never did.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

As a general rule, if a grand jury no bills a person, the DA drops the case unless he can find more evidence. Grand juries are notoriously one sided, so if a DA cannot get a person indicted they know there is very little chance of getting a regular jury to convict when the other side gets equal time. But one of the flaws of our justice system is that a grand jury, since it is non-adverserial, is not part of the trial of a suspect. Double jeopardy provisions do not come into play until a regular trial ends with a decision that is considered final. This is what allows a person to be retried if their case is overturned by an appeals court.

So, as an example of how no billing does not mean anything, around 1996 an off-duty SAPD officer was involved in a shooting when some gang members started banging on his door. Because of his son, the officer knew/suspected they were coming and was waiting for them on the roof of his house. The Bexar County DA thought this made it an ambush shooting and that this was not just self-defense. He took the case to four consecutive grand juries before the fourth finally returned an indictment. That is three times the case was returned to the DA from the grand jury with a no-bill. The officer was found not guilty at the trial and, when polled, the jury said they felt it was justifiable self-defense.

[K.Mooneyham]

Okay, "SOP" was mentioned. However, I am looking for something written in Texas law that says a grand jury MUST be impaneled, no ifs, ands, or buts, in the case of someone being shot and killed. Because if Texas law does NOT say that, then indeed it is up to the DA (or equivalent) to demand that happen. If initial investigation by law enforcement doesn't reveal anything untoward in the event, other than the obvious (home was broken into by armed criminals who were not known to the residents inside who defended themselves, nothing occurred outside the home), then why waste the money, time and effort at all?

In most cases, a DA will take a shooting to a grand jury as a form of political cover. If it is clearly self-defense, when the GJ no-bills the suspect, the DA gets covered for allowing a criminal (the shooter) to walk away with no punishment. There is always someone who wants the shooter to be punished (both extreme liberals and families of the person shot). But I know of no law requiring a shooting to go to a grand jury and am personally familiar with a few that never did.

Curious, can’t someone still be charged later even after no-billed?

As a general rule, if a grand jury no bills a person, the DA drops the case unless he can find more evidence. Grand juries are notoriously one sided, so if a DA cannot get a person indicted they know there is very little chance of getting a regular jury to convict when the other side gets equal time. But one of the flaws of our justice system is that a grand jury, since it is non-adverserial, is not part of the trial of a suspect. Double jeopardy provisions do not come into play until a regular trial ends with a decision that is considered final. This is what allows a person to be retried if their case is overturned by an appeals court.

So, as an example of how no billing does not mean anything, around 1996 an off-duty SAPD officer was involved in a shooting when some gang members started banging on his door. Because of his son, the officer knew/suspected they were coming and was waiting for them on the roof of his house. The Bexar County DA thought this made it an ambush shooting and that this was not just self-defense. He took the case to four consecutive grand juries before the fourth finally returned an indictment. That is three times the case was returned to the DA from the grand jury with a no-bill. The officer was found not guilty at the trial and, when polled, the jury said they felt it was justifiable self-defense.

I suspected that there was no law requiring a grand jury, but since I don't have a legal degree, I'd rather ask those with more knowledge on the subject. Thank you for the information.

[Paladin]

Art. 20A.051. DUTIES OF GRAND JURY. The grand jury shall
inquire into all offenses subject to indictment of which any grand
juror may have knowledge or of which the grand jury is informed by
the attorney representing the state or by any other credible person.
Added by Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 469 (H.B. 4173), Sec. 1.04,
eff. January 1, 2021.

TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

This law firm elaborates:

In Texas, whenever there’s a felony case that goes to trial or pleads, it’s indicted by a grand jury. However, if the defendant chooses to waive the indictment, the case will proceed according to the Texas Constitution.

[G.A. Heath]

Having served on a grand jury I can say that Paladin's information is correct. A grand jury will hear, unless waived by the defendant, all felony cases and rarely some misdemeanor cases that are being prosecuted by the District attorney. A grand jury can question anyone presenting testimony to them and does not require a unanimous vote nor does it require all 12 jurors to be present, in fact only 9 grand jurors need to be present and 9 grand jurors must vote in favor to return a true bill.

The prosecutor can simply decide not to prosecute a case, and eliminate the need to present it to a grand jury. Similarly they can present a case to the grand jury to test the waters on how the public wishes for them to proceed. The prosecutor can even recommend the grand jury return a no-bill if they so choose. A case can be presented to the grand jury multiple times if no-billed, and presented to more than one grand jury that is empaneled in the same county(this is done consecutively). A case that was true billed can be presented again should the prosecutor wish to escalate or add to the charges.

Another interesting fact is that the grand jury can, and often is, presented evidence the petit jury (the normal kind) will not see/hear while the grand jury will not be presented all of the evidence relevant to the case. Consider the idea that a judge rules a search was illegal, and excludes certain evidence. That search and evidence was potentially presented to the grand jury prior to that ruling so they are aware of that evidence but the jury itself is not. Lie detector results can also be presented to the grand jury, but not the petit jury. The petit jury will see tons of evidence, while most of it is likely to have little influence on the grand jury's decision to true-bill or no-bill a defendant so it is not presented to them in the interest of time and to avoid the risk of confusing the issue. Regarding evidence, some prosecutors use strictly testimony and others like to use evidence when presenting to the grand jury. The nature of the case can also influence what the grand jury is shown.

Grand juries returning a no-bill often means one of three things. The prosecutor did a poor job presenting their case, the grand jury believes the case is insufficient to go to trial based on the testimony/evidence presented, or you have a runaway grand jury (a grand jury is not immune to the concept of jury nullification).