The Nation: Trials of the Watergate Jury

• Share

When 23 men and women were sworn in as grand jurors for the U.S. District Court in Washington on June 5, 1972, they anticipated a conventional two-to-three-month duty before lapsing into relative inactivity for the remainder of the 18-month term. Less than two weeks after the swearing-in, five men were arrested on charges of burglary and wiretapping at Watergate — and the grand jurors have been at the court's disposal ever since. Their 19-month tour of duty is already the longest in district court history, and no end is in sight.

Because wrestling with the riddles of Watergate means that the jurors are called an average of three days a week, two of them have lost their jobs for repeated absences from work, and others have lost out on promotion opportunities. Eleven of the 23 jurors are employed by the Government and thus continue to draw full salaries. Some of the others, who include blue-collar workers and domestics paid on a daily basis, rely heavily on the money they get for each day they serve. Until last August, that was $20. Then Foreman Vladimir N. Pregelj, 46, a researcher for the Library of Congress, discovered a law entitling grand jurors to an additional $5 a day for service beyond 30 days. He was unable, however, to per suade court administrators to make the pay raise retroactive.

A second Watergate grand jury, sworn in last August to deal with an antitrust action against ITT, illegal cam paign contributions and other misdeeds, is having similar problems. Last week the jury's foreman, Julian G. Murphy, 54, an independent insurance broker, said that he was quitting because his in come had "dropped at least $1,500 a month, and my business was going down the drain."

But despite the personal sacrifice, most of the members of the original jury have been remarkably restrained in their criticism. Says Foreman Pregelj: "We are all getting a little tired, but no body wants to drop out, especially now. We may be in the homestretch and we all realize this is a historic case."