I just came across this article on the Chronicle's website which says that 6 of the former members of the so-called "Runaway" Grand Jury that heard the David Medina case have filed a law suit.
Where did they file the suit? Who is the suit against? The whole thing seems very strange.
Apparently their demands are that they 1) be allowed to talk about the evidence they heard; and 2) be allowed to speak to whatever new grand jury is empanelled to hear the case.
As to issue #1, I'm very curious as to whether or not they actually are bound by the grand jury's rules of secrecy, now that it has been revealed that it was improperly empanelled. It would seem to me (and this is just me arm-chair quarterbacking here) that if they weren't properly sworn in, then they weren't really a grand jury under the law after their initial term expired. If that's the case, do the rules of secrecy still apply? I don't know what the law officially says on the issue, and I've got too much going on right now to go look it up.
So, Smarter People Than Me, please let me know the answer to that question and get back to us.
As to issue #2, I don't think that anybody can demand that they be seen by a grand jury. From my experience, the Grand Jurors who are sitting on the case are the only people who can decide whether or not they want to hear from a witness. The prosecutors can't make them listen to their witnesses. The defense attorneys can't make them listen to their clients. The Grand Jurors make the call, and I would be rather surprised if any grand jury would want to hear from members of the original grand jury. I could be wrong about that, though.
But for the meantime, I have to agree with Terry Yates when he says "I don't think it's [the lawsuit's] worth the paper its printed on."