NCJ Number
7611
Journal
Georgetown Law Journal Volume: 61 Issue: 1 Dated: (OCTOBER 1972) Pages: 1-35
Date Published
1972
Length
35 pages
Annotation
CRITIQUE OF PRESENT GRAND JURY PRACTICES-PARTICULARLY THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL-AND SUGGESTIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR STATES THAT DENYING A WITNESS OR DE FACTO DEFENDANT COUNSEL BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, PREVENTING PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES TO THE DEFENDANT, AND REFUSING TO QUASH AN INDICTMENT BASED ON INCOMPETENT OR ILLEGAL EVIDENCE ARE ALL HOLDOVERS FROM A TIME WHEN THE GRAND JURY WAS OR WAS BELIEVED TO BE THE PEOPLE'S SHIELD AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL TYRANNY. THE AUTHOR SEES THE GRAND JURY AS RADICALLY CHANGED IN FUNCTION AND FEELS IT IS NO LONGER A GROUP OF PEERS SITTING TO PROTECT CITIZENS, BUT INSTEAD AN ARM OF THE STATE, MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER BEFORE, SERVING THE ENDS OF THE PROSECUTION. THE ONLY RESULT OF THE PRESENT POLICY IS TO DEPRIVE DEFENDANTS OF THE FULL EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND TO FORCE THEM TO UNDERGO WHAT MAY BE NEEDLESS, EXPENSIVE, EMBARRASSING, AND HAZARDOUS TRIALS. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS STRONG REMEDIAL LEGISLATION AIMED AT ELIMINATING THE VARIOUS ABUSES. STATUTORY RIGHTS SHOULD BE CREATED TO PROVIDE FOR COUNSEL BEFORE THE GRAND JURIES, TO PROVIDE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE MINUTES OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED AND PRIOR TO TRIAL, TO PROVIDE THAT GRAND JURY INQUIRY END ON SECURING AN INDICTMENT, SO THAT THE GRAND JURY CANNOT BE USED BY THE PROSECUTOR AS AN EVIDENCE-GATHERING TOOL, AND TO REQUIRE THAT NO INDICTMENT BE RETURNED EXCEPT UPON LEGAL AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, WITH THE PROVISION THAT ONE NOT SO BASED SHALL BE QUASHED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)