What is the purpose of a grand jury? How it is different than a “regular” jury?
In my experience, many people have a lot of misconceptions about grand juries, and it drives me absolutely crazy to know that some people serve on grand juries without fully understanding exactly what their role is, and what happens if they don't raise their hand when a vote is taken on whether to indict an individual.
I served on grand jury duty for 19 full days in Queens, NY about 20 years ago. That is how the system worked at the time in that district (and still might) with the exception of the rare lengthy individual case that takes a prolonged amount of time. The system was for grand jurors to serve full four weeks of business days, but in my case there was a holiday that was skipped. When I told people that I was serving, some assumed that I was using the word “grand” sarcastically. Some also assumed that I was involved with a very important and/or complicated case. And some just had lots of questions about what a grand jury does, and how it is different than a regular jury.
The purpose of a grand jury is to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence in a case to move forward with an actual trial. The role of grand jurors is not to determine the innocence or guilt of an alleged wrongdoer as they would in a regular trial. In fact, it is common for defendants to not even be present for grand jury proceedings. In a general sense, the grand jury serves as a safeguard against unjust charges. For example, if the prosecution is planning on charging someone with murder as well as stealing a car, there has to be at least some reasonably believable evidence that both a murder and a car theft took place. The prosecution can't just say, “Let's throw in a murder charge, and hope that the jury isn't paying attention so we can send this car thief to prison for longer.”
When we hear about grand juries in the news, it is often in the context of a very lengthy and elaborate case. My service, though, just involved listening to literally dozens and dozens of very short cases. We may have heard close to 100. There is no judge present, and the courtroom is not open to the public. No “cross-examination” takes place. A case may begin with a crime victim being brought in and questioned by an assistant DA for just a few minutes in highly choreographed fashion. Minutes later, or even hours or days later, a police officer involved in the case is called in, again, typically for just a few minutes to answer some choreographed questions. We only heard from the defendants in an extremely small percentage of the cases. I don't believe that they were required to appear, but simply chose to in some cases. When they did appear, they had an attorney by their side, and they were permitted to speak uninterrupted provided they limited their statements to events on the day of the alleged crime.
After hearing from each participant in a case (e.g., victim, witness, arresting officer, defendant if s/he chose to testify, etc.), grand jurors could then “whisper” questions into the ear of the assistant DA who would decide if the question was a “valid” one which could be relayed to the participant on the stand as well as all the other grand jurors. I should note that a court stenographer was present to take down all testimony which would supposedly be later reviewed by a judge.
After we heard from all involved parties in a case (which, again, could span many days even though the total testimony was often less than 15 minutes), we voted on whether or not to indict. I should mention that the grand jurors were not allowed to take written notes in any form which was especially troublesome for me since it was very easy to forget nuances of testimony that was given several days prior, and with many parts of other cases heard in the interim.
This is how the process for the indictment vote transpired, at least in Queens, NY, and at the time: There are 23 grand jurors in the room. The assistant DA steps out. The foreperson reads the first (or only) charge (e.g, second-degree assault), and says, “Raise your hand to indict.” This was repeated for each charge, although often there was only one charge. If at least 12 jurors (i.e., 52%) raise their hand, the case goes to an actual trial in a public courtroom with a judge, lawyers, cross-examinations, etc. Jurors who are absent on the day of a vote count as a vote to not indict. If 12 hands are not raised, the entire case is completely dismissed, and never goes to an actual trial. After the vote, the foreperson presses a buzzer which signals the assistant DA to re-enter the room to note our decision.
Let me be very clear: If a grand jury does not indict, even if we are talking about an alleged rape or murder, the alleged rapist or murderer “walks off into the sunset” without ever having stood in front of a judge, without ever being cross-examined, and without having been tried by an actual jury in a “regular” public court setting as we understand such. It was explained to us that in extraordinarily rare cases, a grand jury's decision could be overturned.
I could literally write an entire book about those 19 days, and about how many of my fellow jurors obviously did not understand the importance of their role, and didn't understand the significance of their dozing and/or daydreaming during the vote to indict in each case. I could also write about the fact that prospective grand jurors were not asked one single question by a judge or by any court employee, nor were we required to utter one single word. There was not the slightest interview process since such is apparently unlawful for grand juries. We were all just herded from room to room (including across the street to another building) “like cattle” until we were settled into the grand jury room. I am reluctant to say anything more about the matter since I don't want my readers rolling their eyes and saying, “What do you expect, you're talking about Queens, NY.”
America seems to have taken some steps toward modifying the grand jury system. As of the time of this writing, California will no longer use grand juries in cases involving police-related shootings. Also, according to my informal research, half of all states now utilize public preliminary hearings overseen by a judge as opposed to secret grand juries to determine whether or not to indict in cases. The public is gradually waking up to the fact that the concept of a grand jury has become to a large extent an outdated relic of the past.
Grand juries were originally designed to have very broad powers of investigation in a private context in which they could freely ask questions, and in which witnesses did not have to be intimidated by speaking in front of a public courtroom. If we fast-forward to the present, though, there is great concern that grand juries have become nothing more than “rubber stamps for the prosecution,” and that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” if s/he wanted to. When grand juries vote to indict, many people feel as though the jurors were coerced to do so by a “smooth talking” prosecutor who was in no way overseen by a judge, and who was not cross-examined in any way. When grand juries vote to not indict, people are dismayed by the fact that the case in question will never go to trial, and that no one will ever know what even transpired since the matter was handled quite literally behind closed doors.
It is my opinion that in the context of modern-day America, the concept of a grand jury no longer serves any purpose. We no longer have a population that has the interest and ability to perform effectively in the role of grand juror as originally intended. All we have is a flock of non-interviewed “warm bodies” (16 to 23 typically) who raise their hands like good obedient “sheeple” when instructed to do so. The prosecutor just needs half of the grand jurors plus one more to raise their hands. Hopefully my readers now have a little better understanding of the general concept of a grand jury.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
I served on grand jury duty for 19 full days in Queens, NY about 20 years ago. That is how the system worked at the time in that district (and still might) with the exception of the rare lengthy individual case that takes a prolonged amount of time. The system was for grand jurors to serve full four weeks of business days, but in my case there was a holiday that was skipped. When I told people that I was serving, some assumed that I was using the word “grand” sarcastically. Some also assumed that I was involved with a very important and/or complicated case. And some just had lots of questions about what a grand jury does, and how it is different than a regular jury.
The purpose of a grand jury is to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence in a case to move forward with an actual trial. The role of grand jurors is not to determine the innocence or guilt of an alleged wrongdoer as they would in a regular trial. In fact, it is common for defendants to not even be present for grand jury proceedings. In a general sense, the grand jury serves as a safeguard against unjust charges. For example, if the prosecution is planning on charging someone with murder as well as stealing a car, there has to be at least some reasonably believable evidence that both a murder and a car theft took place. The prosecution can't just say, “Let's throw in a murder charge, and hope that the jury isn't paying attention so we can send this car thief to prison for longer.”
When we hear about grand juries in the news, it is often in the context of a very lengthy and elaborate case. My service, though, just involved listening to literally dozens and dozens of very short cases. We may have heard close to 100. There is no judge present, and the courtroom is not open to the public. No “cross-examination” takes place. A case may begin with a crime victim being brought in and questioned by an assistant DA for just a few minutes in highly choreographed fashion. Minutes later, or even hours or days later, a police officer involved in the case is called in, again, typically for just a few minutes to answer some choreographed questions. We only heard from the defendants in an extremely small percentage of the cases. I don't believe that they were required to appear, but simply chose to in some cases. When they did appear, they had an attorney by their side, and they were permitted to speak uninterrupted provided they limited their statements to events on the day of the alleged crime.
After hearing from each participant in a case (e.g., victim, witness, arresting officer, defendant if s/he chose to testify, etc.), grand jurors could then “whisper” questions into the ear of the assistant DA who would decide if the question was a “valid” one which could be relayed to the participant on the stand as well as all the other grand jurors. I should note that a court stenographer was present to take down all testimony which would supposedly be later reviewed by a judge.
After we heard from all involved parties in a case (which, again, could span many days even though the total testimony was often less than 15 minutes), we voted on whether or not to indict. I should mention that the grand jurors were not allowed to take written notes in any form which was especially troublesome for me since it was very easy to forget nuances of testimony that was given several days prior, and with many parts of other cases heard in the interim.
This is how the process for the indictment vote transpired, at least in Queens, NY, and at the time: There are 23 grand jurors in the room. The assistant DA steps out. The foreperson reads the first (or only) charge (e.g, second-degree assault), and says, “Raise your hand to indict.” This was repeated for each charge, although often there was only one charge. If at least 12 jurors (i.e., 52%) raise their hand, the case goes to an actual trial in a public courtroom with a judge, lawyers, cross-examinations, etc. Jurors who are absent on the day of a vote count as a vote to not indict. If 12 hands are not raised, the entire case is completely dismissed, and never goes to an actual trial. After the vote, the foreperson presses a buzzer which signals the assistant DA to re-enter the room to note our decision.
Let me be very clear: If a grand jury does not indict, even if we are talking about an alleged rape or murder, the alleged rapist or murderer “walks off into the sunset” without ever having stood in front of a judge, without ever being cross-examined, and without having been tried by an actual jury in a “regular” public court setting as we understand such. It was explained to us that in extraordinarily rare cases, a grand jury's decision could be overturned.
I could literally write an entire book about those 19 days, and about how many of my fellow jurors obviously did not understand the importance of their role, and didn't understand the significance of their dozing and/or daydreaming during the vote to indict in each case. I could also write about the fact that prospective grand jurors were not asked one single question by a judge or by any court employee, nor were we required to utter one single word. There was not the slightest interview process since such is apparently unlawful for grand juries. We were all just herded from room to room (including across the street to another building) “like cattle” until we were settled into the grand jury room. I am reluctant to say anything more about the matter since I don't want my readers rolling their eyes and saying, “What do you expect, you're talking about Queens, NY.”
America seems to have taken some steps toward modifying the grand jury system. As of the time of this writing, California will no longer use grand juries in cases involving police-related shootings. Also, according to my informal research, half of all states now utilize public preliminary hearings overseen by a judge as opposed to secret grand juries to determine whether or not to indict in cases. The public is gradually waking up to the fact that the concept of a grand jury has become to a large extent an outdated relic of the past.
Grand juries were originally designed to have very broad powers of investigation in a private context in which they could freely ask questions, and in which witnesses did not have to be intimidated by speaking in front of a public courtroom. If we fast-forward to the present, though, there is great concern that grand juries have become nothing more than “rubber stamps for the prosecution,” and that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” if s/he wanted to. When grand juries vote to indict, many people feel as though the jurors were coerced to do so by a “smooth talking” prosecutor who was in no way overseen by a judge, and who was not cross-examined in any way. When grand juries vote to not indict, people are dismayed by the fact that the case in question will never go to trial, and that no one will ever know what even transpired since the matter was handled quite literally behind closed doors.
It is my opinion that in the context of modern-day America, the concept of a grand jury no longer serves any purpose. We no longer have a population that has the interest and ability to perform effectively in the role of grand juror as originally intended. All we have is a flock of non-interviewed “warm bodies” (16 to 23 typically) who raise their hands like good obedient “sheeple” when instructed to do so. The prosecutor just needs half of the grand jurors plus one more to raise their hands. Hopefully my readers now have a little better understanding of the general concept of a grand jury.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents