NCJ Number
14099
Journal
Hastings Law Journal Volume: 25 Issue: 4 Dated: (MARCH 1974) Pages: 997-1016
Date Published
1974
Length
20 pages
Annotation
EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN CALIFORNIA'S AUTHORIZATION OF BOTH INDICTMENTS AND INFORMATIONS.
Abstract
FELONY SUSPECTS WHO DESIRE TO CONTEST THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT A FORMAL ACCUSATION AGAINST THEM PRESENTLY FACE A SUBSTANTIAL HANDICAP WHEN ACCUSED BY GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AS OPPOSED TO BEING ACCUSED BY INFORMATION. UNDER THE LATTER PROCEDURE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AND THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE - RIGHTS WHICH PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS AT A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. YET, THOSE RIGHTS MAY BE ENTIRELY DENIED IN THE ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO PROCEED BY GRAND JURY INDICTMENT IN LIEU OF PROSECUTION BY INFORMATION. NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST IS APPARENT TO JUSTIFY SUCH DISCRIMINATION. BECAUSE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S RECENTLY ARTICULATED EQUAL PROTECTION-DUE PROCESS TEST FOR INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE UNTED STATES SUPREME COURT'S RECENT EXPANSION OF DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN DEALING WITH PAROLE REVOCATIONS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT A MODIFICATION OF THIS ARBITRARY POWER TO PROSECUTE BY GRAND JURY INDICTMENT SANS PRELIMINARY HEARING MAY SOON BE ANTICIPATED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)