Plumbing 
Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:20 p.m. on Jan. 19 to clarify how the jury will operate.
A jury has been convened in Uvalde to determine if law enforcement officers will face criminal charges related to the attack at Robb Elementary School.
On Friday, Jan. 19, a dozen people were selected to serve on a special grand jury that is expected to spend at least six months studying the May 24, 2022, Robb school shooting investigation.
About 300 people were summoned to appear at 9 a.m. in the 38th Judicial District Court, and 67 people appeared. Juror turnout has been an ongoing issue for the court.
Judge Camile DuBose said in some cases, a mailed summons may fail to reach the intended juror, but some people simply choose not to show up. She said for those who fail to appear, she can summon them to a hearing, where a $100 fine may be imposed on those who have no valid excuse for their failure to appear. For those who don’t show for the hearing, the sheriff’s office may be asked to locate the person and summon them to court.
For a grand jury convened a few weeks earlier on Jan. 3, about 200 people were summoned and 48 showed up. DuBose spoke with those in the jury pool, and 12 people plus several alternates were selected to serve on the grand jury, which typically lasts six months. If a juror misses a session, they cannot return, and an alternate takes their place. To whatever extent is possible, jurors should be area residents who represent a cross-section of the population, including race, gender and age.
“My office continues to methodically and systematically dissect the Texas Rangers investigation of which I have possessed for less than a year. I want to ensure that our efforts in this process are careful, deliberate and fair. I am continuously mindful of my responsibility to the victims, their families, to those under a cloud of accusation and to our community,” said Christina Mitchell, 38th Judicial District Attorney.
“From the beginning, I committed to protect the integrity of the Texas Rangers investigation and to present the investigation to an Uvalde County Grand Jury.”
Christina Mitchell
Mitchell said due to the legal restrictions, she cannot comment on a specific grand jury.
Per the state code of criminal procedure, grand jury proceedings are secret, with jurors, witnesses and attorneys prohibited from speaking about the proceedings.
Mitchell said this legally-required secrecy is vital to the justice process, protecting jurors from pressure by outside people and agencies, and also witnesses and defendants from undue judgements.
Jury duties
A grand jury reviews dozens of cases presented by law enforcement officials and they decided to “true bill or no bill,” requiring affirmative votes from at least nine jurors of whether they think a felony case has enough evidence to move forward with an indictment.
In Uvalde County, misdemeanor cases are handles by the county attorney.
For the Robb investigation, the process is a little different, with jurors focusing on the single topic of the Robb shooting, and serving as investigative tools for the prosecutor with power to subpoena witnesses and compel evidence.
This type of jury is utilized for complex cases that may be labor-intensive, including public corruption cases.
Jurors may meet about twice a month, depending upon work schedules, as they hear testimony from witnesses and study the case presented by Mitchell. At the end of the procedure, they should make a recommendation and possibly issue a report on their findings.
Plans to convene the grand jury began last year, and took several months. Timing played out in such a way that the jury convened one day after the U.S. Department of Justice presented a nearly 600-page report critical of local leaders actions, citing disorganization and lack of unified command during the Robb attack.
Robb attack history
About 20 months ago, hundreds of officers converged on the school, but waited 77 minutes to breach two classrooms where 19 students and two teachers were killed. Several dozen others were injured in the attack by an 18-year-old wielding an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
Officers evacuated the school, removing classes full of children and their teachers from harm.
Officers cited waiting for more resources, such as rifle-rated shields, body armor, SWAT teams, door keys and more as reasons to wait, and treated the attacker, who was ultimately killed, as a barricaded subject rather than an active shooter.
Legal precedent
Police officers are largely difficult to prosecute for inaction, and the law does not require police to risk their lives to protect the public. Per a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, police officers do not have a constitutional duty to protect others from harm.
Few cases against law enforcement for failure to act are presented, and those that are typically fail.
A landmark school shooting related case against a school police officer led to a jury acquittal last year.
In June of 2023 in a Fort Lauderdale court, Scot Peterson, a school resource officer and former Broward County Sheriff’s Office deputy, was found not guilty of child neglect charges for failing to protect students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The school was attacked on Feb. 14, 2018. When he arrived, Peterson, a decorated deputy who was armed, stayed in an alcove outside for over half an hour. Seventeen people were killed in the attack, and another 17 were injured.
An ongoing debate, particularly seen in the wake of the Robb shooting, is whether police have a moral imperative to take action sooner in mass casualty situations, which often see a delay before an attacker is confronted.
Though medical findings have not been made public, families allege some of those who died after the attack might have lived if bleeding had been staunched and they received medical treatment.
Several Uvalde Police officers who were on the scene within minutes charged forward toward the adjoined classrooms where the attacker was, but were repelled after he fired at them. Two officers were wounded by shrapnel, and though one tried again to move forward, no others would follow. Officers told others the attacker had an AR rifle, and the destructive power of the weapon was likely a factor in guiding police decisions.
A 2016 federally funded study found, “there are no comprehensive statistics available on problems with police integrity.” See the study, entitled, Police Integrity Lost: A study of Law Enforcement Officer Arrested” at www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf.
jkeeble@ulnnow.com, 830-278-3335
