Grand Jury Overview

Grand Jury Overview: A Helpful Guide for the Legal Community

The grand jury is an important, tho sometimes controversial, part of the criminal justice system in the United States. This article provides a high-level overview of how grand juries work, their purpose and history, common critiques, and some ideas for reform. The goal is to educate in a clear, concise, and balanced way.

What is a Grand Jury?

A grand jury is a group of citizens, typically numbering between 12-23 people, who are tasked with examining accusations against people charged with crimes. If the grand jury decides their is enough evidence, they can bring formal charges against the accused so they can be tried in court.

So the grand jury doesn’t actually decide guilt or innocence – they just determine if their is probable cause to move forward with charges and a trial. Their role is investigative and accusatory, not adjudicative like a trial jury.

Origins and Constitutional Basis

The grand jury has a long history dating back to 12th century England. The Founding Fathers believed it was an important check on government power and included it in the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says no one can be tried for a serious federal crime “unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

So the grand jury was seen as an important buffer between the government and citizens – regular people, not prosecutors or judges, decide whether to move forward with charges. This fits with the overall spirit of checks and balances in our Constitutional system.

How a Grand Jury Works

Here’s a quick rundown of the basic grand jury process:

• Grand jurors are chosen at random from the community, like for a regular trial jury. They serve for a set period of time, meeting periodically.
• The prosecutor presents evidence and witnesses to the grand jury related to potential criminal charges.
• The grand jury deliberates in secret and decides if their is probable cause to charge the accused with a crime. They need a majority vote to bring an indictment with charges.
• If they vote for indictment, the accused is formally charged and the case moves forward to a trial by a petit (trial) jury.

So in summary – the grand jury determines probable cause while the trial jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The grand jury operates in secret, while the trial is public.

Grand Jury vs Preliminary Hearing

Some states use preliminary hearings instead of grand juries to determine probable cause. What’s the difference?

• Grand juries are run by prosecutors in secret, while prelim hearings are overseen by judges in open court.
• Defendants and their lawyers can participate in prelim hearings by cross-examining witnesses – they are not allowed in grand jury proceedings.
• Grand jury indictments require less evidence of probable cause than prelim hearings.

So prelim hearings give the defense more rights and due process in that initial accusation stage. But grand juries are seen as giving more independence to citizens rather than government officials like judges.

Common Critiques of the Grand Jury System

While grand juries have a long pedigree, they have been criticized on a number of grounds in modern times:

• Secrecy – The closed-door, secret nature of grand jury proceedings makes some uncomfortable in an age favoring transparency. It also leads to accusations that prosecutors manipulate it behind the scenes.
• Lack of impartiality – Grand juries are often accused of being “rubber stamps” for prosecutors since they only hear the prosecution’s side. The jury may form a bias early on without hearing counter evidence.
• Lack of procedural protections for accused – Defendants can’t present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or even observe grand jury proceedings that could lead to their indictment. This had led to calls for more balance and fairness.
• Abuse of powers – There are concerns grand juries have strayed from their original purpose and prosecutors misuse them to harass suspects, fish for information, negate rights, etc. Some say grand jury subpoena powers are too sweeping.
• Costs – Grand juries are criticized as unnecessary expenses since prosecutors almost always get the indictments they seek from them anyway. Some say they add needless time/complexity.

Ideas for Reform

Some ideas that have been floated to reform the grand jury system and address common criticisms:

• Allow defense counsel in grand jury proceedings to cross-examine witnesses and present counter evidence. This could prevent biased one-sided proceedings.
• Require grand jury hearings to have higher evidentiary standards to get an indictment, similar to preliminary hearings. This could prevent baseless charges.
• Limit the types of crimes grand juries are used for, like only serious violent felonies. This could prevent overuse/abuse.
• Impose restrictions on grand jury subpoena powers to protect privacy and prevent fishing expeditions.
• Increase public transparency around grand jury operations to reduce public skepticism and perceptions of bias.
• Abolish the grand jury system completely and rely only on preliminary hearings. But this may go too far and remove an important citizen check on government power.

More study and debate is needed to weigh reforms that balance citizen participation, due process, transparency, and prosecutorial powers. The grand jury plays an important role, but aspects need updating to align with modern notions of justice. Care must be taken to preserve the core benefits of this long-standing institution.

Conclusion

The grand jury has a venerable history dating back centuries, but has proven controversial in recent decades. While criticisms must be taken seriously, we must also acknowledge the grand jury’s fundamental purpose – to inject regular citizen participation and oversight into the criminal charging process. Finding the right reforms that modernize the system while retaining its core benefits is crucial. This will require an open and thoughtful approach from legal experts and the community as a whole.