Grand Jury

[runningdude]

@Senegoid

May I add more related questions to this OP’s question?

What, exactly, does a Grand Jury do? Or, more to my point: What knowledge or competence does one need to be on a Grand Jury, and thus to do what a Grand Juror does?

One often reads news articles about Grand Juries investigating deeply detailed technical stuff, as in municipal finances or the activities of various public and quasi-public agencies, and making recommendations (or even indictments) based on their findings.

Yes I also know (or think I know) that Grand Juries are composed of citizen volunteers. Can just about anyone do this? Or does it take knowledgeable lawyers and/or engineers and/or doctors and/or other skilled professionals to do Grand Jury investigations?

Grand Juries don’t really “investigate”. They are given information by the prosecutor, and must decide if the evidence indicates “probable” cause necessary for an indictment (needed to bring criminal charges).

The prosecutor’s office may submit any evidence it wants, with no judge or cross examination of witnesses by the defense. With such freedom, it is rare for a the grand jury to fail not indict. However if an indictment is reached, a the evidence is made public, so there is some incentive to not blatantly overstate the prosecution’s case.

[Loach]

@md2000

OK, so what criteria are used/needed to proceed with a grand jury rather than directly to trial? Is it the level of crime, the whim of the prosecutor, the desire to avoid accusations of persecution by having the indictment come from an allegedly independent body?

It’s a legal requirement. Here all indictable crimes go in front of the grand jury.

@md2000

The point with a grand jury (from what I hear) is that the prosecutor presents only the evidence he wants to present. There is no provision for any person under consideration for indictment to have a lawyer present (indeed, the proceedings are secret), present their own evidence in rebuttal, and no requirement for the prosecutor to present the whole truth.

Yes. So? It’s simply a check on the state to ensure that they do not go forward with cases that don’t meet probable cause. That is the legal standard for indictment.

@md2000

Hence the joke about the ham sandwich. When you only hear one side, and only some parts, it’s not difficult to say “yeah, there’s enough there to proceed to trial”. Remember, it’s about enough evidence to proceed to trial, not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Yes. So? It’s one extra check on the state nothing more and nothing less.

It is not some secret kangaroo court. All grand jury testimony is transcribed and presented to the defense in discovery. So any discrepancies can be attacked during trial.

[Loach]

@kayT

I’d agree, Eyebrows, that people tended to try to look for innocence or guilt instead of if there is sufficient evidence. The jury foreperson kept dragging that conversation back where it belonged and eventually people got the idea. Took a while though; I can see that in a month that might not happen, or if the foreperson wasn’t on board it might not work. One of the weird things at the beginning was that we got little or not guidance in what we were supposed to do. We all felt a little at a loss and finally asked for help; one of the sitting judges in the court came and talked to us about what our job was, and that was very useful. I think federal is different too, and we had to get a handle on that.

I have often been warned when a grand jury is new. They tend to ask a ton of dumb questions and have too much of a CSI view of what an investigation should look like. After they are there for a while they figure out what is important and what isn’t and things move quicker. Most counties here seat a grand jury for 90 days and they meet once a week. There is also a state grand jury for multi-jurisdictional cases but I have never dealt with that.

[kayT]

“Dumb questions” sees a bit harsh if most grand juries are treated like mine; we got a ten-minute “introduction” speech from a Federal Attorney and had no opportunity to ask him questions. The only guidance we got was after a couple of cases when we protested our lack of understanding and got a few minutes with a judge. Not being psychic, we had a hard time NOT asking “dumb” questions.

[MLS]

The GJ I was on was for the county, and not Federal. We were treated with much consideration and given lots of information ahead of time. After the witnesses, usually a police officer, testified, they left the room. We had a chance to ask the prosecutor anything. If we wanted more info from a witness, s/he would be called back to the room and the prosecutor would ask the question.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@MLS

The GJ I was on was for the county, and not Federal. We were treated with much consideration and given lots of information ahead of time. After the witnesses, usually a police officer, testified, they left the room. We had a chance to ask the prosecutor anything. If we wanted more info from a witness, s/he would be called back to the room and the prosecutor would ask the question.

This is how mine was as well. We were given detailed instructions on what the Grand Jury was for, and what we were actually there to do. There were several times when people wanted to hear more from witnesses and they were brought back in. Perhaps because mine was an everyday thing, and not just once a week.

[Loach]

@MLS

The GJ I was on was for the county, and not Federal. We were treated with much consideration and given lots of information ahead of time. After the witnesses, usually a police officer, testified, they left the room. We had a chance to ask the prosecutor anything. If we wanted more info from a witness, s/he would be called back to the room and the prosecutor would ask the question.

Yes that’s how it works here too. I have never been in the room during the discussions but I have read the transcripts afterwords. The jurors can ask questions and clarify things like what are the elements of a certain crime. The witness can be brought back in to answer more questions too.