Federal and California Grand Jury Systems - Historical Function, Procedural Differences and Move To Reform

• NCJ Number: 85647
• Journal: Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 95-112
• Author(s): L M Aragon
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 18 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Rulings by the California Supreme Court in 'Hawkins' and 'Johnson' have provided needed protections at the grand jury level which are not provided in Federal grand jury procedure; California's approach is one example of how reform of procedure rather than abolition of the grand jury can counter abuses.

Abstract

While Federal case law does not require Federal prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence, in California, a district attorney is required to present all exculpatory evidence known to him/her. Unlike the Federal grand jury, in California grand jury proceedings, hearsay evidence and evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure are inadmissible. Further, as a result of 'Hawkins,' a defendant accused by a State grand jury may contest the existence of probable cause to support the formal accusation by means of a postindictment preliminary hearing. While the California approach preserves the historic function of the grand jury while providing safeguards against abuses, some commentators argue for prosecution by information as an attractive alternative to the grand jury. The requirement of a preliminary hearing before a judge or magistrate is viewed as providing the accused constitutional protection and the opportunity to challenge the evidence, protections and rights not provided in grand jury proceedings. The grand jury should be preserved, however, because it performs a vital function as the public's investigative watchdog over public agencies and public officers. The importance of this function of the grand jury suggests that the grand jury be bifurcated into two distinct capacities: its public capacity and its private capacity. In investigating public agencies or public officials, the grand jury would be unencumbered by procedural restrictions; whereas, when investigating private citizens, its powers should be curbed to conform to established constitutional standards for due process and individual rights. A total of 102 footnotes are listed.