Article 20.17 of the CCP warns a grand jury target or suspect that she has a right to counsel, and appointed counsel, at that. I have searched through Lexis and can find no cases which require a judge to appoint counsel. A judge has informed us that we have to follow Miranda and 38.22 in grand jury proceedings (WRONG - I did find the case law, though I thought the plain language of the statute was clear). The same judge has said that she only has to appoint counsel in case an indictment is returned........

Am I so unable to read the plain language of a statute?

We have several witnesses who committed aggravated perjury before the grand jury. Two, when given the opportunity to retract their perjurous statements, asked for counsel.

If the judge doesn't appoint counsel, and the witnesses won't testify after invoking their right to counsel, do we need to give any further opportunity to retract their staements before indicting them?

The Court wants to save money.........

Or am I just crazy into thinking the plain language of the statute is clear enough, and this is why there are no cases on point that I can find?

That's a new one for me.

What do you think of relying on CCP Art. 1.051(i)? If Art. 20.17 qualifies as an "entitlement" to counsel, but "adversarial judicial proceedings" have not been initiated (n/a to grand jury), (i) seems to give the court 1 or 3 working days to appoint counsel (depending upon the size of the county).

I'm not sure (i) was intended to serve that purpose, but it might work.

I guess things that seen like a "no brainer" to me are often more complicated. You have given me a great place to look! As always, TDCAA comes through!