AN ACT TO REENACT THE STATE GRAND JURY ACT, WHICH WAS REPEALED BY OPERATION OF LAW ON JULY 1, 2024; TO CODIFY THE LAW AT ITS FORMER LOCATION, SECTIONS 13-7-1 THROUGH 13-7-47, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972; TO EXPAND THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE STATE GRAND JURY TO INCLUDE OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS, CERTAIN EMBEZZLEMENT AND FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26 OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890; TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIMES MUST OCCUR WITHIN MORE THAN ONE CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OR HAVE TRANSPIRED OR HAVE SIGNIFICANCE IN MORE THAN ONE CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF THIS STATE CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26 OF THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890; TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NOTIFY THE PANEL JUDGE IN LIEU OF PETITIONING THE JUDGE; TO REQUIRE THE PANEL JUDGE TO IMPANEL A JURY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING NOTICE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; TO REMOVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE PANEL JUDGE TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE GRAND JURY; TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS FOR THE STATE GRAND JURY; TO AUTHORIZE THE PANEL JUDGE TO DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE NOTICE AND ORDER IMPANELING THE GRAND JURY; TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF NARCOTICS TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR THE STATE GRAND JURY; TO REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COOPERATE TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION OF THE STATE GRAND JURY; TO AMEND SECTION 99-11-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REINSTATE SECTION 99-11-3(2), WHICH WAS REPEALED BY OPERATION OF LAW ON JULY 1, 2024; TO DELETE THE DATE OF THE REPEALER ON THE PROVISION OF LAW RELATING TO VENUE FOR INDICTMENTS BY THE STATE GRAND JURY; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB2013 reenacts Mississippi’s State Grand Jury Act after it was repealed by operation of law on July 1, 2024, restoring the statutory framework at Sections 13-7-1 through 13-7-47 of the Mississippi Code. The bill reestablishes the state grand jury system, including its composition, selection process, secrecy rules, subpoena power, immunity provisions, venue rules, and the Attorney General’s role in initiating and directing proceedings. It also reinstates Section 99-11-3(2) and removes the repealer date from the venue provision tied to state grand jury indictments.
In addition to restoring the prior law, the bill would expand the state grand jury’s subject-matter jurisdiction if a proposed constitutional amendment is approved. Under that contingent change, the state grand jury could investigate officer-involved shootings, certain embezzlement and fraud matters, and public corruption, and the bill would eliminate the current requirement that qualifying offenses span more than one circuit court district. The bill also changes the process for convening a state grand jury by allowing the Attorney General to notify the impaneling judge rather than file a petition, requiring the judge to impanel a jury within 30 days, and limiting the judge’s ability to narrow the grand jury’s investigation.
The bill would affect criminal procedure and grand jury administration statewide. It preserves the Attorney General’s central role in investigating, subpoenaing, and presenting evidence, while also adjusting juror qualifications, service exemptions, and compensation. It further directs local officials and law enforcement to cooperate in providing accommodations for the state grand jury and removes the prior role of the Department of Public Safety and the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics in providing space, shifting logistical responsibility more directly to the Attorney General and local authorities.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of restoring and strengthening the state grand jury tool, based on the bill’s framing as a reinstatement of repealed law and an expansion of investigative authority. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded public debate in the materials about support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for broader statewide investigative capacity, especially in corruption and serious criminal matters.
The main points of contention likely center on the proposed expansion of jurisdiction and the reduction of judicial gatekeeping. Potential concerns include increased prosecutorial power for the Attorney General, broader use of secret grand jury proceedings, and the removal of the multi-district limitation that previously narrowed when a state grand jury could be used. If the constitutional amendment is not approved, the bill would still restore the prior state grand jury framework, but the broader jurisdictional changes would not take effect.
SB2013 would restore Mississippi’s State Grand Jury Act in the Code and reestablish the legal authority for convening state grand juries, issuing subpoenas, maintaining secrecy, granting immunity, and returning indictments for statewide criminal investigations. It would also amend venue law in Section 99-11-3 and preserve the state grand jury’s ability to operate across county lines, while shifting procedural control more squarely toward the Attorney General and away from the impaneling judge in some respects. The bill would directly affect the Attorney General’s office, circuit judges, circuit clerks, local law enforcement, and criminal defendants subject to state grand jury investigations.
The overall tone of the bill is favorable toward reinstating a state-level investigative tool and strengthening statewide criminal enforcement. The bill’s caption and text present the measure as a restoration of repealed law, and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes means there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s design, the likely sentiment among supporters is that it improves the state’s ability to investigate serious, multi-jurisdictional crimes and public corruption.
The most notable contention is the proposed expansion of state grand jury jurisdiction to officer-involved shootings, certain fraud and embezzlement cases, and public corruption, especially because that expansion is contingent on a constitutional amendment. Another likely point of dispute is the removal of the requirement that qualifying crimes occur in more than one circuit court district, which would broaden the Attorney General’s reach and reduce the threshold for using a state grand jury. The bill also reduces the impaneling judge’s discretion to limit investigations, which may raise concerns about checks and balances, secrecy, and prosecutorial overreach among critics.