Appearing before a state Senate committee exploring witness fear in Philadelphia, Phillips said Pennsylvania and Connecticut were the only states that do not have indicting grand juries. Federal prosecutors also use such juries to bring charges.
In grand jury proceedings, witnesses are not subjected to defense cross-examination. In fact, defense lawyers even may be barred from entering the jury room.
Many witnesses may not even have to show up for the grand jury in the first place. "For over 50 years," Phillips testified, "courts have held that hearsay evidence is admissible before a grand jury."
Implementing such juries could take action by the state Supreme Court or changes in state law. Indicting grand juries were abolished in Pennsylvania in 1976 in what was touted as a reform, with the aim of streamlining the court system.
Phillips' proposal seems certain to be given serious consideration. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, who took office in January, endorsed the proposal later Friday.
Moreover, Phillips is pushing his plan as member of a new blue-ribbon panel, appointed by the state Supreme Court, that is studying ways to overhaul the Philadelphia criminal justice system.
Phillips has long been one of the lions of the Philadelphia legal community, most famously serving as a special prosecutor uncovering political corruption in Philadelphia and Harrisburg in the mid-1970s.
His successor as special prosecutor, Bernard L. Siegel, took a diametrically opposed position during his testimony before the panel. Now a prominent defense lawyer, he said the return of indicting grand juries would unfairly strip away the rights of defendants - and pointlessly delay defendants' having to face their accusers in open court.
While condemning anyone who would threaten or harm a witness, Siegel asserted that witness intimidation "is not a critical problem" in Philadelphia.
