Who is responsible for the evidences shown to the Grand Jury ? How secret are the Grand Jury’s meetings and what happens in case of a ‘Runaway Grand Jury’ in regard to the indicement ? How are the members checked before approved to Jury ? As far as I know, the prosecutor decides on the evidences shown to the Jury, the offender does his part in front of the jury without the helping hand of an attorney , the Grand Jury decides on the evidence in secrecy without social control and without getting some sort of ‘mental health check’ before…let’s hope the offender was really innocent !
These are good questions and comments. Please keep in mind that there are differences between federal and state grand juries. Also, there are differences among the states so these will be general responses.
Prosecutors generally control the evidence presented to grand juries. In a recent case in which a grand jury declined to indict a police officer who shot an unarmed man, critics argue that the prosecutor presented too much evidence (especially exculpatory evidence) to the grand jury. They argue that the prosecutor did not want the grand jury to indict the police officer so the prosecutor presented so much evidence that the grand jury essentially acted as a trial jury, without a trial. Critics argue that the prosecutor should have presented just enough evidence so that the grand jury could reasonably indict the police officer and then a trial jury should have determined whether the police officer was guilty or not.
Grand jurors are selected randomly, similar to trial jurors. There is a process of questioning meant to determine whether a juror is biased and unfit.
Suspects usually do not appear before grand juries. In the recent case I mentioned in point one above, critics expressed their surprise that the police officer was allowed to testify to the grand jury. Suspects can be indicted by a grand jury before they are even arrested.
Grand jury proceedings are secret. Note that a suspect can be indicted before he is arrested. If the proceedings were not secret he might run away. Jurisdictions differ as to when or if proceedings can be revealed. New York, for example, is quite strict. Civil rights advocates recently asked a court to compel the state to disclose recent proceedings where a grand jury declined to indict a police officer.
Who is responsible for the evidences shown to the Grand Jury ? How secret are the Grand Jury’s meetings and what happens in case of a ‘Runaway Grand Jury’ in regard to the indicement ? How are the members checked before approved to Jury ? As far as I know, the prosecutor decides on the evidences shown to the Jury, the offender does his part in front of the jury without the helping hand of an attorney , the Grand Jury decides on the evidence in secrecy without social control and without getting some sort of ‘mental health check’ before…let’s hope the offender was really innocent !
Who is responsible for the evidences shown to the Grand Jury ? How secret are the Grand Jury’s meetings and what happens in case of a ‘Runaway Grand Jury’ in regard to the indicement ? How are the members checked before approved to Jury ?
As far as I know, the prosecutor decides on the evidences shown to the Jury, the offender does his part in front of the jury without the helping hand of an attorney , the Grand Jury decides on the evidence in secrecy without social control and without getting some sort of ‘mental health check’ before…let’s hope the offender was really innocent !
These are good questions and comments. Please keep in mind that there are differences between federal and state grand juries. Also, there are differences among the states so these will be general responses.
Prosecutors generally control the evidence presented to grand juries. In a recent case in which a grand jury declined to indict a police officer who shot an unarmed man, critics argue that the prosecutor presented too much evidence (especially exculpatory evidence) to the grand jury. They argue that the prosecutor did not want the grand jury to indict the police officer so the prosecutor presented so much evidence that the grand jury essentially acted as a trial jury, without a trial. Critics argue that the prosecutor should have presented just enough evidence so that the grand jury could reasonably indict the police officer and then a trial jury should have determined whether the police officer was guilty or not.
Grand jurors are selected randomly, similar to trial jurors. There is a process of questioning meant to determine whether a juror is biased and unfit.
Suspects usually do not appear before grand juries. In the recent case I mentioned in point one above, critics expressed their surprise that the police officer was allowed to testify to the grand jury. Suspects can be indicted by a grand jury before they are even arrested.
Grand jury proceedings are secret. Note that a suspect can be indicted before he is arrested. If the proceedings were not secret he might run away. Jurisdictions differ as to when or if proceedings can be revealed. New York, for example, is quite strict. Civil rights advocates recently asked a court to compel the state to disclose recent proceedings where a grand jury declined to indict a police officer.
Here is a link to the motion:
http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/EricGarnerGrandJuryTranscript_Application.pdf
Who is responsible for the evidences shown to the Grand Jury ? How secret are the Grand Jury’s meetings and what happens in case of a ‘Runaway Grand Jury’ in regard to the indicement ? How are the members checked before approved to Jury ?
As far as I know, the prosecutor decides on the evidences shown to the Jury, the offender does his part in front of the jury without the helping hand of an attorney , the Grand Jury decides on the evidence in secrecy without social control and without getting some sort of ‘mental health check’ before…let’s hope the offender was really innocent !