Grand jury (United States)

Grand jury (United States)
Name	Grand jury (United States)
Caption	Seal of the United States Department of Justice
Formation	Colonial era; codified in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Jurisdiction	Federal and state levels in the United States
Type	Indicting body
Authority	Fifth Amendment; Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; state constitutions

Grand jury (United States) A grand jury in the United States is an accusatory body that investigates alleged criminal conduct and determines whether probable cause exists to issue an indictment. Originating from English common law and reaffirmed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, grand juries operate at both federal and state levels under authorities such as the United States Department of Justice, state attorneys general, and local district attorneys. Grand juries have played roles in major matters involving figures like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and corporations including ExxonMobil and Volkswagen.

History

Grand juries trace to medieval England where institutions like the Magna Carta and the practice of the Assize of Clarendon influenced accusatorial procedures. Colonial American assemblies imported English grand jury practice; early American uses involved cases tied to events such as the Boston Massacre and prosecutions by colonial governors. The framers debated which safeguards to retain, leading to the inclusion of the grand jury in the Bill of Rights alongside protections in documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Over time, federal judicial reforms such as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court—including rulings involving John Marshall era jurisprudence and later opinions by justices like William Brennan and Antonin Scalia—shaped modern grand jury practice. State-level developments diverged: some states, influenced by reforms spurred by cases like the O. J. Simpson proceedings and corruption investigations involving figures such as Rod Blagojevich, retained grand juries; others replaced them with preliminary hearings as in reforms following scandals involving entities like Enron and WorldCom.

Composition and Selection

Federal grand juries are drawn from jury pools administered through district court clerks and marshals under statutes enacted by Congress and practices of district courts such as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Panels typically number 16–23 members at the federal level as governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; state grand juries vary widely, for example in jurisdictions like New York (state), California, and Texas. Prospective grand jurors are summoned using lists from agencies like county clerks and motor vehicle departments, similar to selection lists used for juries in courts such as the Supreme Court of California and municipal courts in cities like Chicago. Eligibility and exemptions reflect state statutes and precedents from high courts including the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Powers and Functions

Grand juries can investigate crimes, subpoena witnesses, and issue indictments (true bills) or no-bill determinations. They operate in high-profile probes involving public figures and institutions such as investigations into Watergate, the Iran–Contra affair, the Bernie Madoff fraud, and antitrust matters involving firms like Microsoft and AT&T. Grand juries may compel testimony with statutory obligations such as immunity grants overseen by prosecutors from offices like the United States Attorney General or state attorneys general. They also perform investigatory functions in cases involving public corruption—cases linked to politicians such as Kwame Kilpatrick and William Jefferson—and in organized crime investigations that once targeted figures associated with the Genovese crime family and others investigated under statutes like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Proceedings and Procedure

Proceedings are typically secret and ex parte, conducted before a prosecutor and a grand jury foreperson in a grand jury room in courthouses such as those of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The prosecutor presents evidence, calls witnesses, and advises on legal standards; unlike trial juries, grand jurors do not receive the full panoply of adversarial presentation and rules of evidence used in trials governed by cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright and Brady v. Maryland. Targets of investigations—prominent individuals like Michael Cohen, Hillary Clinton, or corporate executives—may be summoned but seldom have counsel present inside the grand jury room. Transcripts and exhibits are sealed; disclosure rules are controlled by statutes and case law from courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and decisions by the United States Supreme Court.

Differences from Preliminary Hearings and Petit Juries

Grand juries differ from preliminary hearings, which are adversarial hearings before a judge used in states implementing reforms influenced by model rules and practices of courts such as the California Superior Court. Preliminary hearings allow defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses and are governed by evidentiary rules tied to state constitutions like those of Pennsylvania and New York (state). Petit juries (trial juries) decide guilt or innocence at trial in courts including federal district courts and state trial courts; their proceedings are public, adversarial, and require unanimous verdicts in many jurisdictions following precedents from cases such as Apodaca v. Oregon and later rulings addressing unanimity.

Criticisms and Reforms

Critics argue grand juries are prosecutor-dominated, opaque, and subject to political influence as highlighted in controversies involving Harvey Weinstein, Roger Stone, and corporate probes into entities like Theranos. Reform proposals from scholars at institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and think tanks like the Brookings Institution include greater defense access, recording of proceedings, judicial oversight, and abolition in favor of preliminary hearings as implemented in jurisdictions like New Jersey and Montana. Legislative responses have ranged from statutory changes in states including Illinois and California to federal policy reforms debated in committees such as the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and among offices within the United States Department of Justice.

Category:United States law