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
ALAMEDA GRAND JURY: JAILS CLEAN, CRITICAL UPGRADES NEEDED FOR AGING FACILITIES
davisvanguard.org/2026/06/alameda-county-grand-jury-report/
DAVIS VANGUARD
By Nancy Carrillo June 22, 2026
ALAMEDA, Calif. — The 2025-26 Alameda County Grand Jury found that the county’s jail and in-custody holding facilities were generally clean, orderly and well-managed, though it noted that some older facilities require infrastructure upgrades to maintain safety and efficiency.
Alameda County undergoes jail and in-custody holding facility inspections by the Grand Jury. After inspecting the Wiley Manuel Courthouse holding cells, Juvenile Justice Center (JJC), East County Hall of Justice (ECHO-J) and Rene C. Davidson Courthouse holding cells, the Grand Jury concluded that the facilities were clean, orderly and generally well-managed, though some older facilities require infrastructure upgrades.
The 2025-26 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report states that, under Penal Code Section 919(b), the Grand Jury is to “inquire into the condition and management” of these facilities.
The report reveals that the Wiley Manuel Courthouse holding cells “house detainees temporarily during court appearances,” with approximately 30 to 135 detainees per day. Detainees are reported to spend six hours at the courthouse, where they are separated into holding cells based on classification. With trained staff on first aid, CPR and AED use, the Grand Jury found that the facility met or exceeded expectations.
The report focused on the JJC, stating that the facility houses up to 300 youth detainees ages 12 to 22. The report, noting that the facility housed 54 juvenile detainees at the time of the inspection, stated that the Grand Jury was pleased with the number of services and programs available, ranging from academic education and health services that specialize in juveniles with special needs to recreational facilities that include a gym, library and computer room.
In terms of security, the report emphasized that JJC had 24/7 camera monitoring, monthly emergency drills, a dedicated emergency generator, food supplies and water reserves. The JJC was described as exceptionally clean, well-stocked and supportive of rehabilitation through extensive programming.
The ECHO-J facility serves as a temporary holding facility for detainees attending court proceedings. With average daily occupancy ranging from 45 to 50 detainees, most remain for one to four hours and do not stay overnight.
The report found that the ECHO-J facility exceeded expectations regarding cleanliness, noting that the cells were clean and equipped with toilets, sinks, benches and call buttons. Daily cleanings were conducted, and first-aid equipment, AEDs and fire extinguishers were readily available.
The last facility the Grand Jury inspected was the Rene C. Davidson Courthouse holding cells, which serve felony detainees attending court proceedings. The facility has an average of 40 daily detainees, increasing to 60 to 70 on Fridays, with detainees staying between four and six hours and a maximum stay of eight hours.
Facility conditions were praised, with the Grand Jury finding clean rooms, trained deputies and additional accommodations for pregnant detainees, such as seating pads and extra jackets.
However, the Grand Jury noted some concerns regarding the ECHO-J facility because of its age. Founded in 1936, the ECHO-J facility is one of the county’s oldest facilities. The report identified aging camera systems, HVAC equipment, electrical infrastructure and cell-door mechanisms as requiring upgrades.
Overall, ECHO-J was praised for how the facility has been maintained, while the report emphasized the need for continued modernization of its aging infrastructure.
Alameda Grand Jury: Jails Clean, Critical Upgrades Needed for Aging Facilities - Davis Vanguard
davisvanguard.org
The 2025-26 Alameda County Grand Jury determined that the county's jail and in-custody holding facilities were generally clean, orderly, and well-managed, though its findings highlighted the necessity...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Santa Clara County Civil grand jury says VTA failed to manage nearly $13 billion San Jose BART extension
www.eastbaytimes.com/2026/06/17/civil-grand-jury-says-vta-failed-to-manage-nearly-13-billion-san-...
The GJ report said the agency has failed to manage financial risks and an oversight committee hasn't held staff accountable
Bay Area News Group
By GRACE HASE | ghase@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: June 17, 2026 at 5:12 PM PDT | UPDATED: June 19, 2026 at 5:17 AM PDT
SAN JOSE, CA – JUNE 13: Passengers board the first train to depart the new BART Berryessa station to open in San Jose, Calif., on Saturday, June 13, 2020. (Anda Chu/Bay Area News Group)
A Santa Clara County civil grand jury report sharply criticized the Valley Transportation Authority’s handling of the nearly $13 billion San Jose BART extension Wednesday, saying the agency has failed to control financial risks, weakened oversight and jeopardized public trust in one of the Bay Area’s most consequential transit projects.
The report lands as VTA prepares its final application for $5.1 billion in federal funding — money the agency is counting on to fund nearly half of the project — and questions mount about whether it can contain costs.
The 6-mile, four-station BART extension, which will run from Berryessa Transit Center in North San Jose, through downtown and to Santa Clara, has been several decades in the making, with repeated delays and cost overruns fueling uncertainty. In 2014, the project was expected to cost $4.7 billion and open in 2026, but the latest estimates now peg the price tag at $12.75 billion with a 2037 opening.
“The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight and financial control of the BSVII Project,” the report said, referring in shorthand to the BART to Silicon Valley project’s second phase.
Campbell City Councilmember Sergio Lopez, who serves as the chair of VTA’s Board of Directors, said they take the findings “seriously” and “remain committed” to improving transparency and accountability.
The grand jury said in the report that the lengthy timeline exposes VTA to financial risks, including the rising cost of labor and materials. The agency has not conducted an updated cost estimate since 2024, though it has been working on cost savings efforts. The $5.1 billion promised by the Federal Transit Administration was less than what VTA had hoped for, triggering a push to close a projected $700 million to $1.2 billion funding gap.
The grand jury said there is “no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks,” raising concerns about the agency’s reliance on two local sales tax measures and uncertainty about federal support for the rail project.
Some of the issues are part of a longer, institutional problem, the grand jury said. VTA not following the recommendation of a 2019 civil grand jury report to reform its governance structure has also led to a “weakening” of the board’s oversight of the project.
The previous grand jury called the agency one of the “most expensive and least efficient transit systems in the country.” It criticized its structure, where board members are appointed from local city councils and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and serve two-year terms, which leads to frequent turnover. VTA has been resistant to moving to an elected board despite its governance being the subject of a state audit and several other critical reports.
The current grand jury said that during its investigation, “sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board.”
Struggling Bay Area transit agencies could further complicate problems. In April, the state issued a $590 million bailout to Caltrain, Muni, AC Transit and BART in hopes of sustaining service ahead of the November election when voters will weigh in on a regional sales tax measure. The state tapped into a pool of money set for capital projects like San Jose’s BART extension, raising concerns for people like state Sen. Dave Cortese who worry it could put the project’s finances at risk.
The grand jury also pointed to weak BART ridership, which has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, as a future financial concern. The first phase of BART’s extension into Silicon Valley, which is made up of the Milpitas and Berryessa stations, has lost an average of $69 million annually during its first five years in operation, according to calculations by the grand jury. In January 2026, ridership was 86% below what was previously projected for the two stations.
Beyond the financial risks, the report also took aim at oversight of the project and said the agency’s board has “failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information” requested by an oversight committee that was formed in 2023.
The grand jury cited a debate over the tunnel design as one example where staff failed to respond to requests in a timely manner. In March 2024, VTA officials said it would conduct an updated cost analysis and “apples-to-apples” comparison between the chosen single-bore tunneling method and the twin-bore approach. They projected the review would take three months, but a report wasn’t released on the matter until August 2025.
The committee itself has also failed “to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction,” the grand jury said.
Santa Clara Councilmember Suds Jain, who sits on the committee, said agency officials often say that each month of delayed decisions adds $20 million to $30 million to the project’s cost. He feels the figure is often cited “to force us into bad decisions.” In an interview, Jain called the report a “great wake up call.”
“It echoes a lot of things that I’ve been saying about the project and I feel like a lot of the stuff I’ve been saying has fallen on deaf ears,” he said.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who chairs the oversight committee but was absent from recent meetings during his short-lived run for governor, defended the committee in a statement, saying the committee has “pushed VTA staff to develop a proper plan B should federal dollars be delayed (and) identified $600 million in cost savings.”
“The greatest risk to this project is time delay,” he said. “I’ve encouraged the committee and VTA staff and contractors to accelerate actual building rather than endless second guessing that does more for the consultant class than our constituents.”
In a statement posted on its website, VTA said it has already made “significant improvements” to several of the issues citied in the report, and remains “focused on delivering a transformative transit project that will serve Santa Clara County for generations to come.”
The agency will have to formally respond to findings within 90 days.
Civil grand jury says VTA failed to manage nearly $13 billion San Jose BART extension
www.eastbaytimes.com
The report said the agency has failed to manage financial risks and an oversight committee hasn’t held staff accountable.0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Stanislaus County Grand Jury Report
www.turlockjournal.com
StanCOG’s corruption saga staggered on with this week’s revelation that secret, unapproved vacation cashouts by three top employees cost county taxpayers more than $595,000 in less than five years...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Tulare County Grand Jury Report-Food Court Issues-County Response
Tulare County Supervisors respond to grand jury food cart concerns
www.visaliatimesdelta.com
The Tulare County Board of Supervisors approved the responses recommended by county staff to the new grand jury report.0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Grand Jury finds dysfunction continuing in Tehama County
Grand jury again recommends, mediation for Kain and Hydrick
www.chicoer.com/2026/06/27/grand-jury-finds-dysfunction-continuing-in-tehama-county/
(Note: this article lies behind a ‘pay-wall’, and requires a subscription to the providing media service in order to access)
Chico Enterprise-Record, by Heather Taylor, June 27, 2026
For the second consecutive year, the Tehama County Grand Jury has recommended that Tehama County Chief Administrator Gabriel Hydrick and Sheriff Dave Kain meet with an outside mediator to resolve differences between the Sheriff and the two men. (Rick Silva/Daily News)
While the Tehama County Grand Jury’s 2025/2026 report issued critical findings against the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Dave Kain, they have not created an accusation for removal, as the previous Grand Jury did against former county Supervisor Pati Nolen. The jury also stated dysfunction identified in last year’s report is an ongoing issue within the county. In their report, the Grand Jury identified the sheriff serves in an elected position, and removal can only occur by a recall, or following recommendation from the Grand Jury, followed by court action. Tehama County District Attorney Matt Rogers confirmed on Thursday,
Grand Jury finds dysfunction continuing in Tehama County
www.chicoer.com
While the Tehama County Grand Jury’s 2025/2026 report issued critical findings against the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Dave Kain, they have not created an accusation for removal, as...1 CommentsComment on Facebook
CGJA 0Santa Clara County – 2026 July- Brown Act Weaponization
www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/11/cupertinos-teleconferencing-rules-may-violate-meeting-transparency...
Cupertino’s teleconferencing rules may violate meeting transparency laws
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report warns of weaponization of Brown Act
Courtesy photo
A new report by Santa Clara County's civil grand jury critiques Cupertino's rule on teleconferencing and the controversy stemming from Councilmember Ray Wang. pictured, repeatedly attending meetings remotely.
Bay Area News Group
By NOLLYANNE DELACRUZ | ndelacruz@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: June 11, 2026 at 6:45 AM PDT | UPDATED: June 11, 2026 at 10:08 AM PDT
The Cupertino City Council may have violated California’s open meeting law by allowing one of its members to teleconference during public meetings, according to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury.
“Cupertino’s current approach undermines public access, is inconsistent with the statutory framework of the Brown Act, and places the convenience of the teleconferencing councilmember above the rights of the public,” stated a civil grand jury report released last month.
The Brown Act allows city councilmembers to use teleconferencing, but that participation is subject to specific statutory safeguards intended to preserve the public’s right to observe and participate in meetings of elected officials.
The civil grand jury report specifically critiques Cupertino’s rule on teleconferencing and the controversy stemming from Councilmember Ray Wang’s repeatedly attending meetings remotely. According to the report, Wang travels regularly for personal business. In 2025, teleconferencing was used at 14 regular or special Cupertino City Council meetings, accounting for one-third of all city council meetings last year.
The report noted that in Cupertino, if a teleconferencing councilmember must leave a meeting due to a scheduling conflict, technical issues or for any other reason, the city council meeting must end. This happened at least three times in 2025. Twice, a meeting ended because Wang had to catch a plane. The third instance occurred on Dec. 2, 2025, when Wang terminated his connection during a study session on a housing project.
According to the report, Wang objected to voting to appoint negotiators, arguing that the agenda did not clearly notify the public that a vote would occur, which would be a Brown Act violation. The law states that a publicly elected body cannot make decisions on issues that aren’t properly noticed to the public.
The Brown Act doesn’t specify rules for adjourning a meeting, said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. However, the Brown Act does state that the public should be able to participate from the remote location where an elected official is logged into a meeting. So when Wang left the meeting, it forced the meeting to end because it prevented the public from participating from his location.
Wang subsequently apologized for leaving the meeting, saying that his laptop battery had died and he was unable to find a working outlet, rendering him unable to log back in to the meeting.
The civil grand jury also expressed concern about Cupertino’s rules for listing the location of the teleconferencing council member. According to the Brown Act, the city must list the location from which they are participating on the agenda and make sure it is publicly accessible. However, the city has repeatedly listed incomplete locations or places that may not be publicly accessible, like private hotel rooms and airport terminals.
“Requiring a member of the public to go to a council member’s private room is not in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act,” the report stated. “Further, if the hotel requires the guests to use room keys to access the elevator, as many do, private rooms are not accessible to the public as required by the Brown Act.”
Loy said it could be “a pretty serious Brown Act problem” if a city council member regularly participates remotely in council meetings while they’re traveling on personal business.
“Part of holding elected office is being accountable and responsive to the people,” Loy said. “It’s about the basic requirements of holding office. Are you prepared to put the people first and be accountable and responsive and prioritize your service to the people that elected you?”
The report noted that Cupertino’s interpretation of open meeting law could allow cities to weaponize the Brown Act, intentionally or not. According to the Brown Act’s teleconferencing provisions, a quorum must be physically present in the city when teleconferencing is used.
However, the civil grand jury argued that allowing meetings to end if a teleconferencing council member leaves creates “a non-statutory condition for the continuation of a meeting” and can unlawfully curtail public comment, interrupt deliberation on agendized items, force delays in city business and undermine the transparency and openness required by the Brown Act.
“This practice elevates the convenience of the teleconferencing member over the public’s right to transparency and participation,” the report states. “It also creates a mechanism by which a member can intentionally halt discussion, block votes or disrupt the public’s business.”
To address this, Cupertino has implemented a requirement that members of the public who want to speak from a teleconferencing location provide at least five hours’ advance notice. However, the civil grand jury criticized this move because those who want to speak at a city council meeting can simply show up to council chambers.
The report recommended that teleconferencing by council members only be permitted from locations that are genuinely publicly accessible, and that the city revoke its requirement that public meetings must end when a teleconferencing council member leaves and shift accountability to maintain public meeting compliance onto the teleconferencing council member.
This isn’t the first time the county has scrutinized Cupertino City Hall. In 2022, the civil grand jury found evidence of mutual distrust between Cupertino City Council members and city staff, which led to a long line of resignations and fill-ins in the city manager’s position.
Cupertino’s teleconferencing rules may violate meeting transparency laws
www.mercurynews.com
A new Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report warns that Cupertino’s rules regarding teleconferencing during public meetings could lead to weaponization of California’s open meeting law.0 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.
