What We Do
We provide the general public with information and educational materials and activities on the California Civil Grand Jury system that will help increase public awareness of the valuable role the civil grand jury plays in our democratic system of government.
We provide comprehensive training on all subjects relative to empaneled civil grand juries available to all 58 counties within California including civil grand jury training as well as specific workshops on key topics relevant to civil grand jury service.
What Are You
Looking For?
Find valuable information on these subjects
Civil Grand Jury Resources
Here you can find sample documents, templates, examples of well-written reports, links to local government resources,
and FAQs.
Our Annual Conference
Every year in the fall, CGJA holds an Annual Conference and Membership Meeting to provide an opportunity for members and civil grand jurors to meet and discuss experiences and hear from speakers and panels on relevant topics of interest.
Chapter Resources
Includes chapter resource documents, suggested activities for chapters, guidance for forming a chapter along with templates.
Get Involved
Join CGJA as an active member, volunteer for CGJA, become a civil grand juror, join a chapter, or support us through a tax deductible donation.
Grand Jurors' Journal
This bimonthly journal is a major source of information about the civil grand jury system and recent updates on CGJA activities of interest to our members.
CGJA and California's Civil Grand Jury System
Learn about CGJA and details about California’s unique system of civil grand juries.
Our Awards
Annual awards recognizing civil grand jury reporting and media coverage along with the Angelo Rolando Service Award.
We can help you become
an effective civil grand juror
CGJA conducts training seminars for civil grand jurors and alternates on their various civil functions. These seminars include twelve full hours of presentations and over 300 pages of training materials. Experienced and highly qualified trainers who have served as civil grand jurors or grand jury legal advisors present these programs locally, throughout the state as “onsite” seminars or via Zoom if Covid-19 restrictions exist.
We also conduct Foreperson and Pro Tem Workshops, Legal Advisors’ Workshops, and Report Writing Workshops.
Stay Updated with Civil Grand Jury News
Grand jury findings draw pushback in proposed Tuolumne County responses
www.uniondemocrat.com/news/article_5cf72bb7-93ca-4cf3-8574-175371dd4299.html
Alex MacLean Aug 28, 2026 Updated Aug 31, 2026
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors (from left) Mike Holland, Steve Griefer, Anaiah Kirk, Ryan Campbell and Jaron Brandon take their seats at a public meeting on Jan. 6.
Guy McCarthy / Union Democrat file photo
Tuolumne County supervisors are set to consider proposed responses to recent civil grand jury reports that raised concerns about the county’s handling of conflicts involving District 1 Supervisor Mike Holland and his private development projects, turmoil in the Community Development Department and other issues impacting the public’s trust in county government.
The proposed responses reject many of the findings and recommendations from the jury’s reports released in June, while also repeatedly accusing the citizen-led watchdog group of exceeding its authority.
A staff report written by County Administrator Roger Root that was released publicly Thursday with informational materials for Tuesday’s meeting stated that “County Counsel has worked with staff and the named Board member” to develop the proposed responses.
Holland stated Friday that he did not write the responses, but did not say whether he reviewed, edited or otherwise participated in developing them.
“I did not craft the responses,” Holland stated Friday in an email.
Asked whether he supported the proposed responses and what role he had in developing or reviewing them, Holland said he didn’t feel it would be “appropriate or responsible” to comment before Tuesday’s meeting.
Holland accused the jury of violating California law by investigating private business dealings he had years before holding public office, though he didn’t identify the specific law. He also suggested potential political motivations for him being targeted.
“Maybe your time would be better spent asking why a civil Grand Jury violated penal code and decided to investigate private businesses and matters that were 4 to 5 years before I was even a board member,” he stated. “Was the Grand Jury process used for partisan political reasons and what attorney was advising them to violate the penal code?”
Root and new County Counsel Walter Wall, who began the role on July 1 and nearly a year after former County Counsel Sarah Carrillo resigned after 21 years with the county, did not immediately respond to questions about who drafted the responses, Holland’s role in developing them and whether he’s eligible to participate and vote on them.
The jury’s reports examined turmoil over the past year-plus since the seating of a new county Board of Supervisors that included Holland and District 4 Supervisor Steve Griefer in January 2025, along with broader concerns about ethics, conflicts of interest, transparency and government oversight.
Among the findings of the jury’s report that looked at county governance issues affecting public trust was that Holland participated in a discussion and vote by the board regarding mobile-home park fees at a public meeting on May 6, 2025, despite what the jury determined was a direct personal financial interest due to him being the owner of mobile-home park in the county.
While the proposed response to the finding acknowledges Holland’s participation, it does not concede that he had a disqualifying financial interest, violated state law or harmed public confidence for doing so.
The proposed response argues that determining such a violation goes beyond the jury’s authority and instead should be handled by the state Fair Political Practices Commission or a court.
Another recommendation from the jury was for elected officials to complete additional ethics training within 90 days, though the proposed response rejects the deadline and states that its use of the word “must” shows either a misunderstanding of its role or “weaponization” of the grand jury “for some political purpose.”
Holland was also accused in the jury’s report of holding incompatible offices by simultaneously serving on the Sonora Union High School Board of Trustees, for which he was elected two years prior to successfully running for county supervisor.
The jury recommended that the county counsel ask the California Attorney General’s Office to evaluate whether Holland should be holding both offices, though the county’s proposed response called the jury’s concern speculative and an unnecessary use of county resources.
Colton E. McCurley will soon replace Holland on the Sonora High board after Holland did not seek reelection this year.
Another major disagreement with the jury in the county’s proposed responses was related to Holland’s eight-building storage facility development at 17411 High School Road in Jamestown, which was extensively discussed in the jury’s reports.
The jury recommended that the county hire independent consultants to conduct a comprehensive review of the project’s compliance with building, grading, occupancy, fire-safety and other requirements.
Additionally, the jury recommended against issuing a certificate of occupancy for the project until a qualified employee of the county Community Development Department verified that all county requirements had been met.
The proposed county response would reject both recommendations as “not warranted as framed” because conducting an independent review would be based on an “unsupported premise that the project requires extraordinary re-review.” It also says occupancy would be approved when legally required conditions were verified through “appropriate County procedures.”
Occupancy certificates have since been issued by the county for Holland’s development.
Public records recently requested by The Union Democrat include a letter from Amador County’s chief building official stating that the buildings were fit for occupancy under the California Building Code, provided all other Tuolumne County requirements had been met.
Amador County officials previously told the grand jury that their role was limited to plan review and inspections, while Tuolumne County would be responsible for final approval and issuing occupancy permits.
Root and Wall did not immediately respond before the 1 p.m. Friday deadline to questions sent Thursday evening regarding who approved the occupancy permits and how they determined all of the requirements had been satisfied.
The county proposed responses also conclude by calling on future civil grand juries to "desist from exceeding (their) jurisdiction" and focus on matters the county says is within their legal authority.
Tuesday’s meeting agenda recommends for supervisors to approve the county’s responses, as well as ratify a separate response from Wall.
Wall declared a conflict that he said disqualifies the County Counsel’s Office from advising the 2026-27 grand jury because the office serves as the chief legal advisor to the board and other county departments that may be investigated by the jury.
The meeting begins at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the board’s chambers on the fourth floor of the County Administration Center at 2 S. Green St. in downtown Sonora.
Contact Alex MacLean at amaclean@uniondemocrat.com or (209) 588-4541.
Grand jury findings draw pushback in proposed Tuolumne County responses
www.uniondemocrat.com
Tuolumne County supervisors are set to consider proposed responses to recent civil grand jury reports that raised concerns about the county’s handling of conflicts involving District 1 Supervisor Mi...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report
Stockton City Council to vote on response to findings and recommendations from the SJC Civil Grand Jury
City Council will consider response to grand jury after missing state deadline - Stocktonia News
share.google
The council will meet six days after missing a state-mandated deadline. A proposed response partially agrees with the grand jury findings.0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Ventura County Grand Jury Report Finds Improvements in Ventura County Workers Compensation System but Perceptions-Problems Remain
www.edhat.com
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury has released an investigative report finding that while the county's handling of workers' compensation claims for deputy sheriffs has significantly improved over th...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Ventura County Grand Jury Report Finds Improvements in Ventura County Workers Compensation System but Perceptions-Problems Remain
www.edhat.com
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury has released an investigative report finding that while the county's handling of workers' compensation claims for deputy sheriffs has significantly improved over th...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report-
SB Connects lacks a transparent tracking system
www.newspress.com
The report considers SB Connect to be, in general, needlessly complicated. Highlighted is the 15-step process users must follow to submit a request of any kind— asking for general information like t...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
UCLA Group urges the Shasta County Ciivil Grand Jury to consider removing Shasta County Clerk.
Opposition is mounting against Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis, with one California voter organization, supported by gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, requesting that the Shasta County Grand Jury remove the embattled clerk from office.
In a letter from the UCLA Voting Rights Project to the Shasta County Grand Jury on Sept. 9, the organization cast doubt on Curtis' ability to administer the Nov. 3 general election, and attempted to lay the groundwork for his removal as ROV. The letter alleged numerous violations of California government and election code by Curtis, and urged the grand jury to initiate a removal effort.
“It sets a dangerous precedent if Mr. Curtis was allowed to employ the authority of his office to cast suspicion on an election he administered, certified, but then lost,” said Sonni Waknin, senior voting rights counsel at the voting rights project, in the statement. “With another election approaching, Shasta County voters deserve an elections office that follows the law, protects the chain of custody, and administers every ballot with professionalism and transparency.”
The letter was signed by several high ranking members of the voting rights project, including Becerra, the senior legal adviser.
The letter alleged that Curtis has made three primary violations of California election and government code.
• The first is that Curtis, in the act of securing ballots from the November 2024 election and June 2 primary election in hopes of turning them over to the federal government for investigation, is "knowingly and fraudulently acting in contravention of" election code, which prohibits ballots from being taken from the custody of an election official.
• The second alleged violation is that Curtis, having directed an elections employee to remove and copy documents containing sensitive voter information and store the copies elsewhere in the elections office, may have violated government code which prohibits government records from being stolen, removed, secreted, destroyed, mutilated, defaced, altered or falsified.
• The third is that Curtis, in taking campaign-related phone calls during county work hours, violated government code which prohibits a local official from using public resources for "campaign activity."
An investigation conducted by Oppenheimer Investigations Group found that Curtis engaged in "at least one campaign-related phone call during county hours."
The letter cited government code 3074 as justification for Curtis' removal, which allows an "officer" to be removed from office by a grand jury for "willful or corrupt misconduct," whether done intentionally or out of neglect.
The voting rights project clarified in their letter that removing Curtis from office does not require him to be criminally charged of violating these laws.
"These acts need not be criminal, as explained above, but demonstrate that Registrar Curtis acts below the standards of decency expected of a Registrar of Voters in California. These willfully indecent acts justify the Grand Jury to initiate removal proceedings."
The letter also urged the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to support a removal effort.
Supervisor Chris Kelstrom had no comment on the matter when reached on Sept. 9.
Neither Curtis, the Shasta County Grand Jury, nor Supervisors Kevin Crye or Matt Plummer responded to requests for comment before deadline on Sept. 9.
UCLA group urges grand jury to consider removing Shasta County Clerk Clint Curtis
www.msn.com
The University of California, Los Angeles' Voting Rights Project is asking the Shasta County grand jury to consider removing Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint1 CommentsComment on Facebook
CGJA Journal
This bimonthly journal is a major source of information about the civil grand jury system and recent updates on CGJA activities of interest to our members.
The Gift of Your Time
is Priceless
CGJA is an all-volunteer membership organization. We succeed mainly because our members volunteer to serve on our committees and/or train civil grand jurors. Serving on committees almost never requires travel as we communicate via email and computer video. Our trainers do travel to venues throughout the state and we reimburse them for lodging, mileage, and a modest per diem for other expenses.
