grand jury
| Dictionary: grand jury |
n.
A jury of 12 to 23 persons convened in private session to evaluate accusations against persons charged with crime and to determine whether the evidence warrants a bill of indictment.
| 5min Related Video: grand jury |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: grand jury |
For more information on grand jury, visit Britannica.com.
| US Supreme Court: Grand Juries |
The American grand jury has its origin in English law. The earliest manifestation appears to have developed toward the end of the tenth century, when leading citizens were summoned to court to report what crimes had been committed in their communities. A more direct antecedent is the Clarendon jury of inquest of 1166, which was established in each community by Henry II as an accusatory body of twelve “good and lawful men.” It reported all offenses that had been (or were said to have been) committed in the venue to a group of knights who, in turn, reported the accusations to visiting royal officers (justices). The reports of the juries of inquest became the key instrument for initiating criminal proceedings. When trial by jury replaced oath‐taking, battle, and ordeal (after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215), jurors were drawn initially from among the members of the jury of inquest.
Grand and petit juries became distinct entities by the middle of the fourteenth century. The modern form of the grand jury dates from 1368, when Edward III appointed twenty‐four men to an inquisitorial and accusatory board in each English county. It required another three hundred years (the Colledge and Shaftesbury cases of 1681) before the grand jury gained the function that is now regarded as its prime virtue and justification: the protection of citizens from unwarranted, malicious, and political prosecutions.
The grand jury came to the American colonies as part of English law. As conflicts developed with the mother country, the colonists made use of the grand jury's protective functions by, for example, refusing to authorize prosecutions sought by the Crown. The most famous example was the Zenger case of 1735. The American grand jury served as an instrument of resistance, as a revolutionary organizing body, and as an arm of democratic self‐government. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States mirrors colonial esteem by providing that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Wood v. Georgia (1962), stated that the grand jury always
has been regarded as a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused … to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will. (p. 390)In United States v. Calandra (1974), the Court also affirmed extraordinary powers and a wide procedural latitude for the grand jury. It guaranteed that the proceedings of grand juries be secret in United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958). In In re Horowitz (1973), the Court affirmed the grand jury's extensive powers to compel the appearance of witnesses, their testimony under oath, and their production of documents. The Court held in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) that not even newspaper reporters' sources of information are immune from the grand jury's subpoena power.
Persons appearing before the grand jury enjoy few procedural rights. The public prosecutor is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence, and the witness has no right to do so. The accused cannot confront and cross‐examine his accusers. No warnings are required regarding self‐incrimination (United States v. Wong, 1977). The likelihood of a criminal prosecution need not be pointed out (United States v. Washington, 1977). Witnesses can be granted immunity against their will. This may be “transactional” immunity (Brown v. Walker, 1896), but it is more likely to be the considerably more hazardous “use” immunity (Kastigar v. United States, 1972). The protection against double jeopardy does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Hearsay evidence may be taken into account and the exclusionary rule does not apply (United States v. Calandra). Although a witness may ask leave to step outside for consultation, he has no right to be advised by his attorney in the grand jury room (United States v. Mandujano, 1976). Interestingly, the Court has not extended the right to a grand jury hearing and indictment to state proceedings (Hurtado v. California, 1884). Fewer than one‐half of the states now use grand juries; the majority authorize prosecutions by way of preliminary hearings before a magistrate.
The qualifications for grand jury service generally include citizenship, the ability to read and write English, mental soundness, and minimum‐age and residency requirements. The size of most federal grand juries is twenty‐three. Sixteen grand jurors constitute a quorum; twelve must agree to issue an indictment. The term of service typically is from three to eighteen months but can be extended. The Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 requires grand jurors to be drawn at random from a fair cross‐section of the community, without attention to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.
See also Fifth Amendment Immunity.
Bibliography
- LeRoy Clark, The Grand Jury (1972).
- Marvin E. Frankel and Gary P. Naftalis, The Grand Jury: An Institution on Trial (1977).
- Richard D. Younger, The People's Panel: The Story of the Grand Jury (1963)
— Peter W. Sperlich
| British History: grand jury |
The Assize of Clarendon provided that twelve men of each hundred were to present on oath to the travelling justices those suspected of serious crimes. From the late 14th cent. the grand jury had the task of scrutinizing indictments to examine whether or not the accused should be sent for trial.
| US Government Guide: grand jury |
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” A grand jury is a group of 12 to 20 people convened to hear, in private, evidence presented by the prosecutor against a person accused of a crime. If a majority of the jurors agree that the accused person has committed a crime, an indictment, or formal charge, is issued. In this way, the government is empowered to proceed with its legal action against the accused person.
The grand jury is a means of protecting an accused person against hasty and oppressive action by a prosecutor for the government. In Wood v. Georgia (1962) the U.S. Supreme Court clearly described the value of the grand jury in protecting the rights of an accused person: “[I]t serves the invaluable function of standing between the accuser and the accused…to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will.”
See also Due process of law; Rights of the accused
| Columbia Encyclopedia: grand jury |
grand jury, in law, body of persons selected to inquire into crimes committed within a certain jurisdiction. It usually comprises a greater number than the trial, or petit (also, petty) jury, having since early common law days had between 12 and 23 members. In the United States, federal grand juries have between 16 and 23 jurors. The grand jury receives complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hears evidence adduced by the state, and approves an indictment when satisfied that there is enough evidence against the accused to warrant a trial. It was not until the 17th cent. that the grand jury acquired its modern functions as a check on the discretion of prosecutors and a way of preventing unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions. Grand juries have investigative functions as well, and are sometimes impaneled to issue reports on, e.g., suspected official wrongdoing.
The rules governing grand jury proceedings are very different from those governing trials by (petit) jury. The public is not admitted to hearings, and witnesses can be compelled to testify. The procedure is inquisitorial rather than adversarial: the defense is not allowed to call witnesses, and the prosecutor is not obliged to present both sides of the case. Hearsay and other evidence that might be excluded at a jury trial may be introduced.
The use of grand juries has declined in the 20th cent., in part because they were perceived as prone to either prosecutorial domination or abuse of their investigatory role. Britain abandoned them in the 1930s, and today fewer than half of U.S. states employ them. The information, a written statement issued by a prosecutor, has largely replaced the indictment. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, guarantees a grand jury inquiry to anyone accused in federal court of a capital "or otherwise infamous" (i.e., a felony) crime.
| Law Encyclopedia: Grand Jury |
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime.
An American institution since the colonial days, the grand jury has long played an important role in criminal law. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a person suspected of a federal crime cannot be tried until a grand jury has determined that there is enough reason to charge the person. Review by a grand jury is meant to protect suspects from inappropriate prosecution by the government, since grand jurors are drawn from the general population. It has been criticized at times as failing to serve its purpose.
The grand jury system originated in twelfth-century England, when King Henry II enacted the Assize of Clarendon in order to take control of the courts from the Catholic Church and local nobility. The proclamation said that a person could not be tried as a criminal unless a certain number of local citizens appeared in court to accuse her or him of specific crimes. This group of citizens, known as the grand assize, was very powerful: it had the authority to identify suspects, present evidence personally held by individual jurors, and determine whether to make an accusation. Trial was by ordeal, so accusation meant that conviction was very likely. (Trial by ordeal involved subjecting the defendant to some physical test to determine guilt or innocence. For example, in ordeal by water, a suspect was thrown into deep water: if she or he floated, the verdict was guilty; if the suspect sank, the verdict was innocent.)
The grand assize was not designed to protect suspects, and it changed very little over the next five hundred years. Then, in 1681, its reputation began to change. An English grand jury denied King Charles II's wish for a public hearing in the cases of two Protestants accused of treason for opposing his attempts to reestablish the Catholic Church. The grand jury held a private session and refused to indict the two suspects. This gave the grand jury new respect as a means of protection against government bullying (although ultimately in those particular cases, the king found a different grand jury willing to indict the suspects).
After this small act of rebellion, the grand jury became known as a potential protector of people facing baseless or politically motivated prosecution. The early colonists brought this concept to America, and by 1683, all colonies had some type of grand jury system in place. Over the next century, grand juries became more sympathetic to those who resisted British rule. In 1765, for example, a Boston grand jury refused to indict leaders of protests against the Stamp Act, a demonstration of resistance to colonialism.
The grand jury was considered important enough to incorporate it into the U.S. Constitution created after the Revolutionary War, and has remained largely unchanged. Grand juries are used in the federal and most state courts. Federal grand juries use a standard set of rules. States are free to formulate their own pretrial requirements, and vary greatly in the number of grand jurors they seat, the limits placed on the deliberations of those jurors, and whether a grand jury is used at all. Federal courts use a grand jury that consists of twenty-three citizens but can operate with a quorum of sixteen. Twelve jurors' votes are required for an indictment. States use a grand jury consisting of as few as five but no more than twenty-three members. Grand juries are chosen from lists of qualified state residents of legal age, who have not been convicted of a crime, and who are not biased against the subject of the investigation.
The usual role of a grand jury is to review the adequacy of evidence presented by the prosecutor and then decide whether to indict the suspect. In some cases, a grand jury decides which charges are appropriate. Generally, grand jurors do not lead investigations, but can question witnesses to satisfy themselves that evidence is adequate and usable. The prosecutor prepares a bill of indictment (a list explaining the case and possible charges) and presents evidence to the grand jury. The jurors can call witnesses, including the target of the investigation, without revealing the nature of the case. They call witnesses by using a document called a subpoena. A person who refuses to answer the grand jury's questions can be punished for contempt of court. However, no witness need answer incriminating questions unless that witness has been granted immunity. In federal courts, the jurors may accept hearsay and other evidence that is normally not admissible at trial.
If the grand jury agrees that there is sufficient reason to charge the suspect with a crime, it returns an indictment carrying the words true bill. If there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the grand jury, it returns an indictment carrying the words no bill.
Seldom do grand juries issue documents. However, when given a judge's permission to do so, they may use a report to denounce the conduct of a government figure or organization against whom an indictment is not justified or allowed. This occurred in 1973, when U.S. district court judge John J. Sirica allowed the grand jury investigating the Watergate scandals to criticize President Richard Nixon's conduct in covering up the involvement of his administration in the June 17, 1972, burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Apartment and Hotel complex. The judge recommended that the report be forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee to assist in proceedings to impeach the president. Many states allow the issuance of grand jury reports, but limit their use: the target must be a public official or institution who can be denounced only where statutory authority exists, and the resulting document can be released publicly only with a judge's approval.
In February 1996, for the first time in history, a first lady of the United States was required to appear before a grand jury. Hillary Rodham Clinton testified for four hours before a federal grand jury on the disappearance and reappearance of billing records related to her representation of a failed investment institution that was under scrutiny when she was an attorney in Arkansas. Her testimony was part of the Whitewater investigation, which examined past financial dealings of Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Bill Clinton, and others.
Critics have complained that the grand jury offers witnesses and suspected criminals insufficient protection. The cause of the controversy is the set of rules that govern the operation of federal grand juries. A prosecutor (a public attorney whose job is to prove a defendant's guilt) manages the work of the grand jury, which is to investigate and determine the adequacy of evidence against a suspect. Grand juries have broad powers in order to accomplish their goals, and they meet in secret. Critics say this combination leaves room for abuse by prosecutors.
Among a federal grand jury's powers is the authority to call witnesses, including suspects, without identifying the exact nature of the investigation. Witnesses cannot have an attorney present when they testify. Prosecutors are required to present, on behalf of the suspect, information that they feel is exculpatory (so strong that it could create a reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime). In arguing that the suspect should be charged, prosecutors may make arguments and use information that would not be admissible during a trial. A formal record of federal grand jury proceedings is not usually provided to the suspect even after indictment. Among the actions a grand jury cannot take are gathering evidence solely for a civil, or noncriminal, lawsuit, and obtaining evidence against someone who has already been indicted.
Critics of the current system claim that justice is ill served by these rules. They say that ambitious prosecutors can misuse the powers of a nonprofessional grand jury to harass, trap, or wear down witnesses. For example, activists who opposed the Vietnam War during the 1960s and 1970s accused the Justice Department of abusing the grand jury system as it searched for information about political dissidents. The activists believed that the department used the power and secrecy of the grand jury to intimidate witnesses and fish for evidence. Many other groups, such as the news media, the business community, and organized labor, have also criticized the institution.
Supporters of the current system say that the secrecy of the grand jury's work prevents suspects from escaping, prevents attempts to influence the jurors, prevents the coaching or intimidation of witnesses, encourages candid testimony, and protects the privacy of innocent suspects who are later cleared. Regarding witnesses' lack of legal representation, supporters of the status quo point out that delay, disruption, and rehearsed testimony would lessen the efficiency of the grand jury's work and would result in a minitrial. Similar arguments have been made against limiting evidence that would not be admissible at trial. In addition, federal courts have held that because the rights of a suspect are adequately protected during trial, where the strength or weakness of evidence determines the verdict, no examination of grand jury indictment proceedings is necessary.
Grand juries also face criticism in the area of jury selection, especially with high-profile cases. Criticism focuses on bias and a lack of balance in the selection process. The requirement that grand juries be unbiased has evolved since the indictment of Vice President Aaron Burr as a traitor in 1807, when he insisted that the evidence against him be heard by an "impartial" jury as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. He successfully challenged many jurors on the all-Republican grand jury that had been selected. Burr was willing to accept jurors who were familiar with some details of his famous case but claimed not to have drawn any conclusions about it. (Although he was indicted, Burr was eventually acquitted at trial.)
Today, an unbiased grand jury means one that comprises people who have no prior familiarity with the facts of the case. Critics of this requirement say that it greatly limits the quality of people who are chosen to sit, since many intelligent, engaged, and otherwise ideal candidates for a grand jury also follow the news. On June 24, 1994, a California state judge dismissed a grand jury that was considering whether to indict former athlete and media personality O. J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The judge was responding to concerns, of both the prosecutor and the defendant, that grand jurors had been exposed to pretrial publicity that might prejudice them — such as transcripts of 911 calls made by Simpson's ex-wife after he broke down the back door to her house.
After numerous struggles to balance juries— including grand juries — racially and by gender, federal case law provides that "a defendant may challenge the array of grand jurors … on the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn or summoned in accordance with law, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified" (Estes v. United States, 335 F.2d 609, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964, 85 S. Ct. 656, 13 L. Ed. 2d 559).
There have been suggestions that the federal grand jury be abolished, but this action seems unlikely because it would change the Bill of Rights for the first time. In addition, the investigative and indicting roles of the courts have to be performed by some entity, and an alternative entity may be less desirable than the grand jury. Some states have abolished grand juries or provided alternatives. For example, in some states, prosecutors are allowed to file an information, which is a formal list of charges, usually submitted with notice of some kind of probable cause hearing.
Other suggestions for change at the federal level may experience more success. Among those promoted by the American Bar Association and others are the following: [bl]Better instructions from judges to jurors about the grand jury's powers and its independence from prosecutors
Reports by prosecutors on the performance of the grand jury system
Increased access to grand jury transcripts for suspects who are eventually indicted
Expanded safeguards against abuse of witnesses, including education about their rights and the presence of their attorneys
Notification of targets of investigations that they are targets
Optional rather than mandatory appearances by targets of investigations
An end to the requirement that prosecutors present defense evidence, and replacement with a requirement that grand jurors be informed that the defense was not represented in the hearing.
| Poker Guide: Grand Jury |
A player whose poker hand consists of three fours.
SoundPoker Says: This is referred to as a Grand Jury because there are 12 members in a grand jury (three X 4's = 12).
See Also: Sailboats, Set, Three Of A Kind, Trips
| Politics: grand jury |
A jury that decides whether the evidence warrants bringing an accused person to trial. Once indicted (see indictment) by a grand jury, a person must stand trial.
| Wikipedia: Grand jury |
 |
| Criminal procedure |
| Investigating and charging crimes |
| Criminal investigation |
| Arrest warrant Search warrant Probable cause Knock-and-announce Exigent circumstance Reasonable suspicion Search and seizure Search of persons Arrest · Detention Right to silence Miranda warning Grand jury |
| Criminal prosecution |
| Statute of limitations Nolle prosequi Bill of attainder Ex post facto law Criminal jurisdiction Deferred prosecution agreement Extradition Habeas corpus · Bail Inquisitorial system Adversarial system |
| Charges and pleas |
| Arraignment · Information Indictment Plea · Peremptory plea Nolo contendere Plea bargain |
| Related areas |
| Criminal defenses Criminal law · Evidence Civil procedure |
| Portals |
| Law · Criminal justice |
In the common law, a grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.
Contents |
History
The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England.[1] In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men was sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment.[2] The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility.[3]
In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, so that for a size of 23 a bare majority would be 12. Any citizen could bring a matter before it directly, from a public work that needed repair, to a delinquent official, to a complaint of a crime, and they could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen, who could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury, and if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, then by returning the indictment to the complainant, it appointed him to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[4] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended.[5]
Ireland
In Ireland grand juries were active from medieval times in the English-controlled parts of the island, mainly functioning as local government authorities at the county level, as well as having a pre-trial judicial function for serious criminal cases. Members were usually wealthy landowners, farmers and merchants, who selected new members. From 1691 to 1793 Roman Catholics were excluded from membership. They were replaced by democratically-elected County Councils by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898.[6]
Today
Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In Australia, although the State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 Indictments, it has been used on rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offenses. New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. Canada abolished it in the 1970s. Today approximately half of the states in the U.S. employ them,[7] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[8] Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.
A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is a case to answer), or "no true bill". In the state of Louisiana there is a third option, "By pretermitting entirely the matter investigated". This requires nine of the twelve grand jurors to determine there is not enough evidence presented to determine if a person should or should not be charged with a crime.[9] Jurors typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit jury, and participate for a specific time period.
United States
Federal level
Charges involving "capital or infamous crimes" under federal jurisdiction must be presented to a grand jury, under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been interpreted to permit bypass of the grand jury for misdemeanor offenses, which can be charged by prosecutor's information.
State level
Unlike many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that this requirement was not incorporated to apply to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, and states therefore may elect not to use grand juries.[10]
Runaway grand jury
Rarely, grand juries aggressively go beyond the control of the prosecuting attorney. When the grand jury does so the situation is called a runaway grand jury. Runaway grand juries sometimes happen in government corruption or organized crime cases, if the grand jury comes to believe that the prosecutor himself has been improperly influenced. Such cases were common in the 19th century, but have become infrequent since the 1930s.[11]
One of the most famous cases was the 1935 Runaway Grand Jury in New York City, which was investigating gambling and mobster Dutch Schultz. Jury members complained in open court, which was widely reported by the press, that prosecutors were not pursuing obvious leads and hinted that the district attorney was possibly receiving payoffs. Thomas E. Dewey was appointed as an independent prosecutor and would rocket to fame on his prosecutions.[12]
Criticism
Libertarian and president of the Constitution Society Jon Roland has argued that most grand juries as they are set up and used today are unconstitutional, and that there should be a return to grand jury practices closer to those that prevailed during the founding era. This would mean grand juries of 23 unpaid citizens each serving no more than 3,000 people, open to having anyone bring any matter before them, with no preferential treatment of public prosecutors, and deciding every question by a vote of at least 12.[13] Professor Kevin K. Washburn has made a somewhat similar claim, arguing that grand juries that are drawn from actual communities would better fulfill the promise of representing "the community" in criminal justice and serve as more weighty and cohesive counterparts to expert prosecutors.[14]
Cato Institute writers argued that grand juries as conducted today are unjust as the defendant is not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to call witnesses. Intended to serve as a check on prosecutors, the opportunity it presents them to compel testimony can in fact prove useful in building up the case they will present at the final trial.[15]
Many jurisdictions in the United States have replaced the formality of a grand jury with a procedure in which the prosecutor can issue charges by filing an information (also known as an accusation), which is followed by a preliminary hearing before a judge at which both the defendant and his or her counsel are present. New York has amended procedures governing the formation of grand juries so that grand jurors are no longer required to have previous jury experience.
Contrary to what some might expect, in some jurisdictions grand jurors are selected to serve by the local prosecutor, rather than by random selection from the community. Many who serve have done so many times and have a proven "record" to indict. No state has a provision to limit the number of grand juries a prosecutor can form to finally get the indictment he wants. If the first one doesn't indict he can form another. Sol Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of New York State, observed that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."[16], later stating that "the remark was not intended to amuse." [17] This issue was identified nationally when a Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, organized three grand juries before he could get an indictment on Congressman Tom Delay. The issue is mitigated by the fact that each subsequent grand jury may be called to view additional evidence, and not to merely revisit evidence that was already presented; but in the Earle/DeLay case, the third grand jury handed down its indictment less than a week after the second grand jury handed down a "no bill" decision.
In his two page Op/Ed in the Houston Chronicle, Joseph Gutheinz, a Texas attorney, former Harris County grand jury member and a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association went against members of his own party by condemning the way grand juries are selected in Harris County, Texas. He said that "Harris County grand juries are too white and too conservative." Gutheinz called the "Harris County grand jury...a throwback to our segregated past." Gutheinz said that the problem with the Harris County grand jury is that it is largely drawn from a pool of volunteers, and that Commissioners picked by the Republican judges get to pick what individuals ultimately get to serve on grand juries, and then the judges pick the grand jury foremen from that list.[18][19][20]
The Constitutionality of contemporary grand jury practices has been brought before the Supreme Court six times in history; however, the court has yet to allow a case to be heard.
In all U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, a potential defendant has the right under the Fifth Amendment not to give self-incriminating testimony. However, the prosecutor can call a potential defendant to testify, which may require that person to then assert his or her Fifth Amendment right. In New York and some other states, a witness testifying about crimes he has committed is immune to prosecution for those crimes, unless he previously waives immunity.
County grand juries in Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada
In the U.S., the states of California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon have grand juries at the county level.
In California, each county is required by the state constitution to have at least one grand jury impaneled at all times. Grand Juries are governed by Title 4 of the California Penal Code, as well as other more general provisions. Grand juries are not subject to the Brown Act.
Most grand juries are seated on a fiscal cycle, i.e. July through June. Most counties have panels consisting of 19 jurors, some have as few as 11 jurors, others have as many as 23 (see California Penal Code Section 888.2). All actions by a grand jury require a two-thirds vote. Jurors are usually selected on a volunteer basis.
These county-level grand juries primarily focus on oversight of government institutions at the county level and lower. Almost any entity that receives public money can be examined by the grand jury, including county government, cities, and special districts. Each panel selects the topics that it wishes to examine each year. A jury is not allowed to continue an oversight from a previous panel. If a jury wishes to look at a subject that a prior jury was examining, it must start its own investigation and independently verify all information. It may use information obtained from the prior jury but this information must be verified before it can be used by the current jury. Upon completing its investigation, the jury may, but is not required to, issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations.
The grand jury is required to publish a minimum of one report containing a minimum of one finding and one recommendation. The published reports are the only public record of the grand jury's work; there is no minority report. Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required or requested to respond. The format of these responses is dictated by California Penal Code Section 933.05, as is the time span in which they must respond.
County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the grand jury's work.
Most county grand juries in California do not consider criminal matters, though by law they are able to. The decision of whether or not to present criminal cases to the grand jury is made by the county District Attorney.
The law governing county grand juries may differ in Nevada.
Hennepin County, Minnesota (which contains Minneapolis) keeps a Grand Jury impaneled at all times. Each Grand Jury serves a term of four months. The Grand Jury typically meets one day each week. It focuses almost exclusively on homicide cases.
Circuit Grand Juries in Kentucky
In Kentucky, grand jurors are empaneled in each county, at the Circuit level (felonies only) for a four-month term (3 panels per year). During the trial jury orientation for the given four-month term, the grand jurors are selected from the trial jury pool, although the method of selection is not necessarily random. The meetings are twice a month (however, grand juries in more populous counties generally meet more often), with each meeting usually going through 20-30 cases in a 4-5 hour period. The indictment rate is about 98-99%; the grand jury can broaden (about 1% of the time) or narrow (about 3% of the time) the counts in the indictment as well. Usually, 15 or so grand jurors are required to report to meetings; the hope is that 12 will show to each meeting, which is the number of jurors required to hear cases (extra jurors can leave). It takes 9 yes votes to the question of probable cause to sign a true bill of indictment. Less than 9 yes votes either causes a no true bill or a narrowing of the indictment (depending on the votes per count).
The rules are very similar to the federal process; the grand jury only hears from law enforcement personnel, with the exception of property crimes, where store detectives or actual victims of theft or vandalism are called to testify. The only cases brought to the grand jury are those initiated from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office (the prosecutor for felonies). For the vast majority of cases, the grand jurors generally only hear a recitation of facts from the police report, crime laboratory reports, and other documentation generated during the evidence gathering process. Grand jurors can ask factual questions of the witnesses and legal questions of the prosecutors. The ability to broaden or narrow indictments does technically allow for grand juries to open new avenues of investigation, although since it is dependent on prosecutors for facts, this seems very rarely done, if ever. Rules of confidentiality apply to grand jurors, which are similar to the federal rules.
See also
References
- ^ Medieval Sourcebook: Assize of Clarendon 1166
- ^ The Making of Modern Britain
- ^ The Grand Jury
- ^ The Grand Jury, George J. Edwards (1906)
- ^ If It's Not a Runaway, It's Not a Real Grand Jury, Roger Roots, Creighton L.R., Vol. 33, No. 4, 1999-2000, 821
- ^ Chandler, J. A (1993). J. A. Chandler. ed. Local government in liberal democracies: an introductory survey. Routledge. pp. 31. ISBN 9780415088756. http://books.google.com/books?id=0zFCA4BjmiQC&pg=PA31&dq=%22the+grand+juries+continued+until+most+of+their%22&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=%22the%20grand%20juries%20continued%20until%20most%20of%20their%22&f=false. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System". American Bar Association. http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ Brenner, Susan; Lori Shaw (2003). "Power to abolish Grand Jury". University of Dayton School of Law. http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ [[1]] 16th Judicial District Attorney's Office The Grand Jury Procedure; What action may a grand jury take after hearing evidence in a case? #3. retrieved 2009-01-02
- ^ Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) and Hurtado v. California
- ^ Brenner, Susan; Lori Shaw (2003). "What is a "runaway" grand jury?". University of Dayton School of Law. http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ Fighting Organized Crime: Politics, Justice, and the Legacy of Thomas E. Dewey by Mary M. Stolberg [Northeastern (October 5, 1995) ISBN 1555532454
- ^ Opening the Grand Jury, Jon Roland
- ^ Kevin K. Washburn, Restoring the Grand Jury, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2333(2008), available at [2]
- ^ http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa476.pdf, A Grand Façade: How the Grand Jury Was Captured by Government, by W. Thomas Dillard, Stephen R. Johnson, and Timothy Lynch
- ^ Berliner, Uri (July 20, 2006). "Would That Make Him a Genetically Modified Ham Sandwich?". Mixed Signals. NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5571945. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ Sol Wachtler, After the Madness (e-reads.com, 2003), p. 254.
- ^ Grand Jury System's a Bad Joke on Justice: Harris County grand juries are too white, too right. Minorities, Democrats pay unfair price, Joseph Richard Gutheinz, Jr. Houston Chronicle, page E-1 and E5, June 1, 2008.
- ^ { http://www.hpjc.org/CWPP_Newsletter080701.pdf } Evidence Keeps Mounting: No Justice in Harris County Justice System. The Newsletter of the Coalition of Working People and the Poor, Volume 2, No 2, July 2008.
- ^ { http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html?ex=1372651200&en=849acdaef3a9ceac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink } Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars, by Adam B. Ellick. New York Times, July 1, 2008.
External links
- Grand Jury FAQ from the American Bar Association
- Grand Juries and Government Harassment of Activists
- The California Grand Jurors' Association
- "Federal Grand Jury", a website from a professor at the University of Dayton
- More on Grand Jury reform, from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- How Federal Grand Juries Work NPR. Accessed 2008-09-06.
- Grand juror handbooks from the court system:
- Federal (in PDF format)
- Virginia
- Hennepin County (Minnesota)
- Illinois
- Gottlieb, Bruce (5 August 1998). "Who Is a Grand Jury?". Slate (magazine). http://www.slate.com/id/1001959/.
- Who invented the grand jury? from the Straight Dope
- Questioning Double Jeopardy
- Grand Juries
- The Grand Jury, Hugh Turley, Hyattsville Life and Times, January, 2007
|
||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Learn More
 | Clarendon, Constitutions of |
| due process of law |
| rights of the accused |
Help us answer these
 | What is the difference between a jury trial and a grand jury trial? |
| What are the similarities of a grand jury and trial jury? |
| Difference between grand jury and a jury that sits during a trial? |
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
 |
 | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| British History. A Dictionary of British History. Copyright © 2001, 2004 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| US Government Guide. The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more |
 |
| Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Poker Guide. ©2006 SoundPoker.com All rights reserved. Owned and Operated by Poker Interactive Inc. Read more |
 |
| Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Grand jury". Read more |
Related answers
- What is a grand jury?
- What is a grand jury and what does it do?
- What is the difference between Grand Jury and Trial Jury?
ADVERTISEMENT
Answer these
- What are grand juries?
- What if the grand jury did not have a enough evidence to send to a grand jury?
- Who employs grand juries?
Mentioned in
- true bill
- Sit (legal term)
- indictment (Politics)
- Presentment (legal term)
- President Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony (1998 History Film)
- subpoena (Politics)
- No Bill (legal term)
- Accusatory Body (legal term)
- Bill of Indictment (legal term)
- Handle with Care (1958 Crime Film)
- Crime Scene Investigation: Grissom's Divine Comedy: CSI (TV Episode) (2007 TV Episode)
- Grand Jury (1977 Drama Film)
- finding
- hearing
