The UK abolished Grand Juries early in the 20th century, I believe. Did we lose one of the basic protections of our liberty, still preserved in the US? Or is it merely theatrics, weighted so heavily in the prosecutor’s favour that it affords no extra security at all to a person who may be wrongly accused? (Didn’t one American prosecutor say that a Grand Jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich’ if so directed?)
The question is prompted by the following passage from Henry Fielding, writing in 1749 in A Charge to the Grand Jury, etc.
“What, gentlemen, shall we say of the institution of grand juries, by which an Englishman, so far from being convicted, cannot be even tried, not even put on his trial in any capital case, at the suit of the crown, unless, perhaps, in one or two very special instances, till twelve men, at the least, have said on their oaths, that there is a probable cause for his accusation?”
This is stirring stuff, and leads me to believe that we British have lost something precious. (I’m not even sure why we got rid of them, but I’ll wager they told us it was for our own good.)
So, does the institution still work in the US as it was designed to do?
Having served on a local criminal grand juryas juror or foreman I can say “Yes. It does.”
e.g. A defandent was charged with criminal neglience at insistenance of relative(s) of victims of a major accident.
Re defendant 1. Lost job. 2. No longer insurable. 3. Long term health problem limiting physical capabilities.
Jury concluded: No danger to the public safety. No reason to incarcerate at public expense, and handed down a no true bill.
<5% Not True Bills, >95% True Bills based on Probable Cause.
OTOH juries and jurors can be caprious for various reasons.
I say meh. Certainly there are instances when the grand jury refuses to indict, and a poll of those suspects not indicted will reach the obvious result, but it’s generally understood that the prosecutor with any sort of case at all can get an indictment.
That said, when a prosecutor is corrupt or suffers from an excess of zeal, the g.j. might make a real difference in the interests of justice. I think this is a less common occurance than one might expect.
Former New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, though at one point primarly known for his jurisprudence is now mainly known for two things.
The first is that, while he was the sitting Chief Judge, he went somewhat bonkers, stalked and harrassed his ex-mistress, and went to federal prison on the charges.
The second is what he will likely be immortalized for-- his quip on the value of the Grand Jury system: “Even a modestly competent district attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”