L.A. COUNTY GRAND JURORS SEEK AUTONOMY; WATCHDOG PANEL IRKED AT RESTRICTIONS.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

A week after one of its members was suspended for allegedly speaking out on the panel's work, the Los Angeles County grand jury called Friday for more independence and authority to comment publicly and defend its reports.

In a report titled ``Grand Jury Needs More Free Speech and Independence,'' the panel criticizes the current system that gives county officials wide powers to edit and veto reports critical of county departments and that prevents jurors from publicly defending and advocating their recommendations.

``In this work, the restrictive rules of criminal procedure are inappropriate and crippling,'' said the report, which added that with relaxed restrictions the grand jury could be an ``exceedingly useful watchdog'' on government agencies.

``As things now stand, the grand jury acting in its civil capacity does not and cannot live up to its potential,'' the report added.

Because jurors are now prohibited from publicly explaining or defending their reports, ``such reports . . . are easily ignored or refuted by the officials who should be responding to them,'' the new report says. ``Grand jurors are bound by law to remain forever mute in the face of untrue attacks on their work.''

The grand jury called on the county Board of Supervisors to give the panel independent legal counsel. The grand jury asked supervisors and the Superior Court to support new legislation that would allow grand jurors to discuss their reports publicly.

``This is a report based on our observations on getting our jobs done,'' said grand juror Russell Hawkes, who headed the committee that drafted the report calling for reforms.

``It seems to me it could be improved,'' he said of the current system.

Although recommendations were first proposed months ago, Hawkes said the report ``certainly has relevance'' to a dispute now involving grand jury member Jerry Berk.

Berk faced removal from the panel for attempting to send a letter to the county Board of Supervisors defending a report for which he was the author.

Berk wrote the letter to rebut what he believed was inaccurate criticism by a sheriff-appointed ombudsman of a grand jury report recommending that ombudsmen be appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

A deputy district attorney stopped the letter from going out, but Berk was served with an order to show cause why he should not be removed from the grand jury for writing the letter in alleged violation of confidentiality rules.

On June 20, Berk was suspended by Supervising Superior Court Judge John Reid for discussing the incident and other grand jury concerns with the Daily News despite a gag order.

The grand jury's public report Friday raised many of the same concerns voiced by Berk, including objections to the role of the deputy district attorney who serves as the panel's adviser.

``Is the District Attorney's Office not treading upon the independence of the grand jury when it vetoes questions addressed to witnesses by the jurors?'' the report asked.

Deputy District Attorney John Licker, the panel's current adviser, declined comment. Office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said recently that questions for witnesses must be edited in criminal cases because improperly worded questions can be used by a defense attorney to get charges thrown out.

But the panel suggested that the adviser could go off the record to help a juror rephrase an important question.

The report asked the Superior Court to hire an independent attorney to advise the grand jury in place of the county prosecutor assigned for that purpose.

The grand jury also alleged that the County Counsel's Office has a conflict of interest. The grand jury said its reports may be edited and vetoed by county lawyers who serve as counsel for the county departments being criticized in the reports.

Representatives of the County Counsel's Office could not be reached for comment.