The recent decision of the Harris County grand jury to return indictments, not against Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast but against the producers of the heavily-edited and misleading Planned Parenthood videos, is commendable and demonstrates that at least in this instance the grand jury system can be an effective instrument of justice.
That investigation, which also exonerated Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast of the false and malicious charge that it was engaged in a collateral business of selling fetal body parts, was led by the Harris County District Attorney, a strongly pro-life Republican.
Supporters of Planned Parenthood are not "pro-abortion." They are instead strong defenders of the constitutionally guaranteed right of women to make the most personal and private of decisions regarding their personal autonomy, including the life-changing decision to terminate a pregnancy. For more than 70 years Planned Parenthood has provided invaluable assistance to women in need of vital health services, including family planning, cancer screening, and HIV testing.
Instead of commending the District Attorney for her professionalism and commitment to the rule of law and impartial administration of justice, the grand jury's decision and her handling of the investigation has been called into question by pro-life activists and other opponents of Planned Parenthood who wish to cripple the organization.
It is difficult not to notice this newly-found concern over the fairness of the criminal justice system on the part of the critics, most of whom expressed no such concern about the integrity of the grand jury process in any of the several other recent high-profile cases in Harris County and in other places around the country such as Ferguson, Missouri; Staten Island, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; or Waller County, Texas.
As a senior member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the Ranking Member of its Crime Subcommittee, I am well aware of the historic and important role played by the grand jury in the American criminal justice system. I also am aware that like any institution, a grand jury is not infallible and may in a particular case fail to deliver justice.
This, however, does not appear to be one of those cases. Rather, in this instance the process worked as intended, aided in part by the reforms to the grand jury system mandated last year by the Texas State Legislature replacing the old "key man" system with the random selection of grand jurors from voter rolls and drivers license records to ensure a more diverse jury pool.
Although the grand jury found sufficient evidence to believe that the defendants committed felony crimes of tampering with a government record with the intent to defraud, and that one defendant also committed the additional offense of soliciting the purchase of body parts, it should be remembered that an indictment is not an adjudication of guilt. Rather it is merely a determination that probable cause exists to conclude that a crime has been committed by the defendants. But the defendants are presumed innocent of the charges, each element of which must be proved at trial beyond reasonable doubt by the District Attorney. And defendants, of course, have the constitutionally protected right to challenge the evidence presented and confront the witnesses against them.
In fact, for defendant Daleiden, a trial presents him a second opportunity to clear his name if he believes he has committed no unlawful act. His first came when he was afforded the opportunity to appear before the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee at a hearing to investigate the Planned Parenthood videos he produced. He declined to appear. Now he will have ample opportunity to defend the alleged unlawful acts he took to smear Planned Parenthood.
If there is one lesson that critics of District Attorney Anderson and the grand jury that refused to return indictments against Planned Parenthood should learn from this episode it is that they should exercise restraint before impugning the motives and questioning the good faith of their fellow citizens who may in some future case express disappointment or frustration with the results of a future grand jury investigation or who call for needed reform of the criminal justice system.
###
Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat representing Houston in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary. She is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations.