Local News

Plumas Grand Jury Support Criticized; DA Denies Missing Investigation Rumors

Former grand juror questions county backing as officials defend jury changes and deny report meddling.

Dana Loomis

February 12, 2026

Loading...
The Plumas County Courthouse, where Board of Supervisors meetings are held.

The Plumas County Courthouse, where Board of Supervisors meetings are held. Credit: Ken Lund / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0

QUINCY — In a comment delivered at the February 10 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Clint Koble of Hamilton Branch, who served on Plumas County’s Civil Grand Jury for 2024-2025, criticized the county government’s support for the Grand Jury and its work. The Grand Jury “has not been fully recognized, appreciated, or respected for its efforts to perform its duties,” he said, citing inadequate funding, poor technical support, and slow response by the Superior Court and County Counsel for hindering the jury’s investigations.

Koble further alleged that an individual who was interviewed in one of the Jury’s investigations violated the admonition of secrecy that is given to participants in Grand Jury interviews by disclosing information about the interview. Following that disclosure, Koble said, the interviewee’s supervisor sent what he described as a “scathing and libelous letter...accusing the Grand Jury of malicious actions” to the presiding judge of Superior Court, the District Attorney, and the Board of Supervisors.

Although breaking the admonition of secrecy is punishable as contempt of court under California law, Koble said that county legal authorities did not take any action against the individual involved or defend the Grand Jury. Instead, he alleged, the jurors were reprimanded for their “behavior and methods” in conducting interviews.

Plumas County’s Civil Grand Juries have struggled to maintain enough jurors, and the Board of Supervisors recently moved to reduce the required number from 19 to 11. Koble argued that the change reduced the jury’s effectiveness and said new jurors would be more willing to serve if the county provided adequate “technical, financial, and government support.” He asked the Board to reverse its decision to reduce the size of the jury.

Speaking later in the meeting, District Attorney David Hollister maintained support for downsizing the jury, which he had requested on behalf of the current members. He also said he wanted to address rumors about the 2024-2025 grand jury’s report. He called allegations that the Superior Court Judge had “removed” an investigation from the report “categorically false” and said that judges do not have legal authority to change grand jury reports. He described the court’s role as mainly advisory.

Board Chairwoman Mimi Hall said county staff are working to obtain a complete, official copy of the 2024-2025 Grand Jury report from the court and will post it on the county website.

Featured Articles

← Back to home