NCJ Number
16087
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 65 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1974) Pages: 157-169
Date Published
1974
Length
13 pages
Annotation
A DISCUSSION OF UNDERLYING REASONS FOR THE CURRENT DISSATISFACTION WITH THE GRAND JURY, COURT REACTIONS TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE OPERATION OF THE GRAND JURY.
Abstract
THE EVOLUTION OF THE GRAND JURY FROM ITS COMMON LAW ORIGINS TO ITS CURRENT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE IS TRACED. THE AUTHOR STATES THAT BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY IS DEPENDENT ON THE PROSECUTOR, IT IS OFTEN CALLED BY ITS CRITICS A RUBBER STAMP OR TOOL OF THE PROSECUTOR. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY BE ABLE TO PREJUDICE OR EVEN MANIPULATE THE GRAND JURORS AND OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT WHEN THERE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO HOLD AN ACCUSED FOR TRIAL. SEVERAL DECISIONS OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUES RAISED BY PROSECUTORIAL MANIPULATION OF THE INDCITMENT PROCESS ARE REVIEWED. ALSO, SEVERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THESE COURT DECISIONS ARE EXPLORED. AMONG THESE ARE QUESTIONS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, CONSIDERATIONS THAT SUCH CHALLENGES WOULD UNDULY BURDEN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE THROUGH TRIAL DELAYS, AND CONTENTIONS THAT THE SECRECY SURROUNDING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WOULD PROHIBIT CHALLENGES TO INDICTMENTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATURE PROVIDE DEFENDANTS WITH ACCESS TO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS OR ALLOW THEM TO INTERVIEW GRAND JURORS AFTER INDICTMENT, AND THAT THE COURTS TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE DURING THE INDICTMENT PROCESS TO INSURE THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE GRAND JURY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)