10. Your Right to Indictment by a Grand Jury. **

1.  THE PROMISE OF YOUR RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY.

The Fifth Amendment promises you a right to the protections of a Grand Jury.

In pertinent part, it promises:   "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."



2.  WHY WAS YOUR RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY IMPORTANT TO THE FRAMERS?

At the time of the American Revolution, the rights of potential defendants to a preview and evaluation of potential charges against them by a Grand Jury was crucial to the Framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Bill of Rights for two reasons.

The Grand Jury was seen as a shield for dissenters against false or questionable criminal charges sought by an abusive government.

The Grand Jury was also seen as a sword for ordinary citizens to use against abusive government officials.

But as we will see, the right to a Grand Jury has disappeared from every country except America and Liberia.  In America, it has disappeared from 27 states for most state charges.  In the federal system, it has been changed from a shield for dissenters to a sledge hammer for federal prosecutors.



3.  WHERE DID YOUR RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY ARISE?

The "Thing" In Scandinavia:  Clans were obligated to avenge their dead or wronged relatives.  To reduce or avoid blood feuds, regular meetings called "the "thing" were held where local disputes were presented by local fact-finders to both the Chieftain and the "Law-keeper" (who memorized all prior decisions).  Then votes were taken by the assembly on verdicts and resolutions.

The Archon's Council in Ancient Athens:  Each chief judge had a council which advised him of crimes and evidence which might be considered at trials.

The Two Magistrates Of Ancient Rome:  In criminal cases, the Emperor assigned crucial criminal cases to two magistrates (the duumvirate) to make a preliminary finding of a defendant's guilt or innocence.  It they found him guilty, he could appeal for a full trial.

The "Inquest" of Frankish Kings:  When a king's rights in a legal contest were "in question" ("inquest"), he king summoned a panel to consider the allegations.  If they found fault, the matter was sent to trial.  If the inquest panel was found to be wrong, the members were often fined.

The "Presentment Juries" of King Henry II In England In 1166:   In 1166, King Henry II created the fore-runner of the modern grand jury at the Assize of Clarendon.  The King need to seize control of the courts from local nobles and Church courts for five reasons. 

First, most of the nobles had left  England to pursue the Crusades, leaving local disputes to the weaker young brothers who decided legal matters in their own favor. 

Second, a crime wave had been sweeping England for a decade after a civil war had left unpaid mercenaries to resort to robbery of villages. 

Third, with nobles in the Middle East and many English castles sitting empty, squatters moved in and made claims.  Because there was no system of land records, King Henry had to create juries to resolve local land disputes.

Fourth, the Church courts were taking power from the government by stepping into the void and resolving most legal disputes. 

Finally, the King wanted the Crown to get the revenues from resolving disputes in royal courts.

One of the 1166 reforms was the creation of "presentment juries" of twelve local men who received no evidence, but were presented with suspects and informed of the potential charge against them.  Based on their own knowledge, the jurors decided if the case should be decided in royal courts or should be dismissed because it was just an abuse by Church or baronial powers.

Thus, the first grand juries had no investigative powers and were not intended to protect the average subject's rights.  They were a tool to consolidate Crown powers and fatten the royal purse.

The "Magna Carta" In 1215 Created A Right To Grand Juries for Nobles.  Just before 1215, King John had imposed heavy taxes on nobles to pay for a war to regain the King's personal lands in France.  When King John returned from losing that war in France, he was faced by rebellious nobles in the north and east of the kingdom.  To avoid a civil war. King John signed the Magna Carta which protected the rights of nobles from unfair taxes and trials. 

The original Magna Carta was not intended to protect the rights of ordinary people, but it evolved into that over the next 500 years through later agreements and statutes from Parliament.

One of the rights for nobles that was in the Magna Carta was a requirement that before there was a trial (by fact-finding or mortal combat), charges would be presented to a local grand jury who would either find or reject probable cause for trial.  This right was later extended to regular subjects by Act of Parliament and thhe English Bill of Rights in 1688.

In murder cases, a "coroner's jury" would be taken on a "field trip" to view the corpse at the scene.  They would return to a room, review any presented evidence, and either send the defendant to the Crown with an indictment for trial or would plead"ignorance" of the killer's identity.

4.  WHY WAS THE GRND JURY SO VALUED BY THE COLONISTS?

Grand Juries Had Protected Catholics When Protestants Were In Charge:  After King Henry VIII created the Church of England in 1527 and during the reign of his daughter Elizabeth I from 1533 to 1603, the Tudors bypassed the guarantees of a grand jury's review of charges against Catholics before trial with their institution of "indictments by information" based on allegations by paid informants and political enemies.

Defendants were then brought before either the Star Chamber or the High Commission where they had no counsel, were asked self-incriminating questions, and subjected to torture until they confessed.

This oppression led to a rebirth of Catholic power and the Long Parliament which eliminated the Star Chamber and the High Commission, cancelled indictments by information, and restored indictments by grand juries in 1641.

Grand Juries Had Protected Protestants When Catholics Were In Power:  After the English Civil War, pro-Catholic forces regained power in 1660.  When King Charles II discovered the Rye House Plot by some Anglicans to murder him and his brother in 1679, King Charles II began a purge of Anglicans by bringing unsupported charges to grand juries.

That purge was brought to a halt in 1681, when grand juries rejected naked allegations against Anglican leaders Lord Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge.

When the Anglicans regained power with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the regime passed the English Bill of Rights which included a review of criminal charges by a grand jury.  This promise was adopted by the American colonies.

In The Colonies, Grand Juries Acted As A Shield Against False Charges:  As the fever against British oppression, taxes, and corruption rose, the Colonists chose to use the Grand Jury as a shield against disputed Royal charges.

The same John Hancock who signed the Declaration of Independence and for whom the insurance company was named was a shipping leader.  Because of his work with firebrand Samuel Adams and his funding of patriot causes, he was targeted by Crown authorities.  Prosecutors bribed Hancock's enemies and paid informants to make false claims that Hancock was a smuggler.  In 1768, the Crown seized his ship Liberty and his cargo.  The grand jury refused to indict Hancock, but the prosecutor presented charges without an indictment and he was held for two years until he paid a huge bail and was later exonerated.

Similarly, grand juries refused to indict revolutionary publisher John Peter Zenger for his newspaper's criticisms of the corrupt Royal governor of New York.  Two grand juries ignored the demands of the Royal judge that they indict Zenger.  When he was tried on a prosecutor's "presentment" of charges, Zenger's lawyer argued that ignoring the grand jury threatened to restore the torture and abuses of the Star Chamber.  He was acquitted in 1735.

As war approached, grand juries refused to indict people accused of leading the Stamp Act Revolt in 1766.  They also declined to indict the publishers of revolutionary newspapers such as the Boston Gazette.

Throughout the 1760s, grand juries along the whole American seaboard refused to bring indictments against persons accused of smuggling and tax evasion under the Intolerable Acts.

Colonists Also Used Grand Juries As Swords Against British Officials And Soldiers:  The colonists also attempted to use the grand jury as a sword against Crown officials and soldiers.  Because grand jurors were popularly elected, the Sons of Liberty and their compatriots packed panels that brought indictments against Crown officials.  The indictments were quashed by prosecutors who refused to bring defendants to trial.

Grand juries did succeed in bringing indictments against Captain Thomas Prescott and several of his soldiers for the 1770 Boston Massacre.  Future President John Adams was Prescott's lawyer and won an acquittal for him.  But two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to death, but they avoided execution with a "prayer for clergy" plea.  Instead, they were branded on the thumb with the letter "M" for "murder."

5.  A DEMAND FOR GRAND JURIES WAS A KEY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS:  When the Constitutional Convention sent the draft of the U.S. Constitution for ratification by the states in 1787, the Framers outlined their vision of how a central government should be structured.  They did not include a Bill of Rights to identify certain liberties that would be guaranteed to citizens.

Anti-Federalist opponents of a strong central government seized on the lack of enumerated rights as a key objection.  The guarantee of grand juries as a buffer between abusive government and individual citizens was vital in some of these debates.

The ratification conventions in Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire approved the Constitution, but urgently recommended that the right to Grand Jury be included in a Bill of Rights.

In their first constitutions or Declarations of Rights under the Articles of Confederation, many states had also included the Grand Jury guarantee before ratifying the 1787 Constitution.  These included North Carolina, Maryland and Georgia.  The other new states had merely incorporated the use of grand juries in their court systems by statute.

When the first Congress met in 1791, Congressman James Madison wrote the amendments which were sent to the states for ratification as our Bill of Rights.  The Grand Jury was an enumerated right.

6.  FEDERAL IMPRISONMENT TRIGGERS A RIGHT TO GRAND JURY:  The Fifth Amendment guarantees a federal defendant's right to a Grand Jury preview and review of potential charges for "Capital Crimes" which could lead to execution and "Infamous Crimes" which are not defined in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has defined "infamous crimes" first as those which could lead to imprisonment at hard labor, and then as crimes which could lead to federal imprisonment.

The U.S. Supreme Court released a man from prison where he had een convicted in federal court of federal crimes involving the counterfeiting and sale of fake coupons for U.S. bonds where he had been tried without a Grand Jury review or indictment. 

He had been convicted after an "information" was filed by a federal prosecutors, tried, and then sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.  The Supreme Court held that imprisonment made this an "infamous" crime which required a preview and review of the charge by a Grand Jury.

               Ex parte Wilson, 1885.

The Supreme Court reached the same result later that year in a similar counterfeiting case where a federal convict was sentenced to 15 years at hard labor after a trial launched by an "information" instead of a Grand Jury "indictment"led to a conviction and sentence which the Supreme Court reversed with a writ of habeas corpus.

               United States v. Petit, 1885.

The "hard labor" requirement was dropped in a case where men were convicted after a federal "information" for breaking into a Chicago ballot box and changing votes in a federal election.  It did not matter that the federal judge sentenced the men to serve two years in a state prison.  The convictions were reversed.

               Mackin v. United States, 1886.

The Supreme Court enforced the Grand Jury requirement for an "infamous crime" punished by a sentence as short as sixty days with hard labor for a Chinese national who was tried, convicted, and jailed for being in the country illegally before he was to be deported.  Because the First Amendment's guarantee of a Grand Jury was to "a person" and not "a citizen," Woo Wing's right was upheld.

               Woo Wing v. United States, 1896.

     However, Grand Jury rights were not necessary for German spies who landed by submarine and

     entered the U.S. with explosives and the intent to destroy or sabotage American industrial

     facilities during WWII during a time of war.

               Ex Parte Quirin, 1942.

The Supreme Court also reversed the federal conviction of a Nevada man who falsely registered and voted in a federal election, was charged by indictment, and sentenced to serve more than a year in a territorial penitentiary.

               Parkinson v. United States, 1887.

The Supreme Court reversed a man's conviction for failing to provide child support when he was tried, convicted and sentenced to six months at hard labor.  He was released because he had been charged for an "infamous crime" without a Grand Jury indictment.

               United States v. Moreland, 1922.

     But a three-year consecutive sentence for contempt of court was held to not be an "infamous

     crime" which required a Grand Jury indictment or a jury trial.  Several defendants were convicted

     of being Communists under the Smith Act in 1951.  When the trial court ordered them to

     surrender for their five-year sentence, they fled and hid for five years.  The Supreme Court held

     that "contempt of court" was not a "infamous crime" and upheld the extra sentence.

               Green v. United States, 1958.

7.  PROSECUTORS CANNOT CHANGE LANGUAGE OF INDICTMENTS:  The Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions which prevent prosecutors from expanding the charges that may be brought against and indicted federal defendant.

Prosecutors were forbidden to change the language of a Grand Jury indictment and bring different charges against bank officers who were charged with fraud, convicted, and sentenced by a federal charge under an altered "indictment" that was not approved anew by the Grand Jury.

               Ex parte Bain, 1887.

The Supreme Court also struck down the conviction of a man for extortion and interfering with interstate commerce.  The Grand Jury indictment had cited the defendant for interfering with interstate commerce by placing extortion demands for importing sand into Pennsylvania for the construction of a steel plant.  At trial, the prosecutor amended the charges to include extortion demands for exporting steel from the Pennsylvania plant.

               Stirone v. United States, 1960.

But two more recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened the insistence that the actual language of a Grand Jury indictment must be followed to protect defendants' rights.

However, in a case involving a narrower trial prosecution, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for mail fraud.  The Grand Jury had heard evidence that the defendant had conspired to have his home burglarized and then lied to his insurer about his alleged losses.  At trial, the prosecutor provided evidence only relating to the defendant's fraudulent claims.  The Supreme Court held that the broader indictment provided adequate notice of the fraud charge which was considered by the trial jury.

United States v. Miller, 1985.

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of allegedly major cocaine distributors even though the Grand Jury's indictment did not mention that they had been arrested with more than 50 grams of cocaine and the trial jury was not asked to find that they had at least 50 grams of cocaine, which justified their conviction for an enhanced (but minimally higher) sentence for mid-level possession.

               United States v. Cotton, 2002.

8.   EROSION OF GRAND JURIES BEGAN BY ELIMINATING IT AS A SHIELD:  From the very start of the American experiment under the Constitution, the Grand Jury became a tool for oppressing political dissenters and unpopular minorities.

For most of the two decades after George Washington's presidency, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists took turns using Grand Juries to indict their political enemies under the Sedition Act for uttering or publishing ideas that tended to "stir up" opposition to government policies.

Before and during the Civil War, Southern Grand Juries indicted pro-abolitionist editors and ministers, while Northern Grand Juries replied in kind to Southern sympathizers and separatists.

During Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era, Southern Grand Juries refused to indict Klan members and returned "true bills" against racial minorities and Republicans.

In the 19202, prosecutors used the Grand Jury to harass Socialists, labor leaders, Black Nationalists, and the International Workers of the World.

In the 1950s, prosecutors used the Grand Jury to pursue Communists under the Smith Act and "contempt of Congress" charges.

In the 1960s, prosecutors used the Grand Jury to pursue leftist radicals and ant-war protestors.

In the 1980s, the Grand Jury was used to pursue Puerto Rican nationalists.

Even today, political prosecutors are abusing the Grand Jury to oppose partisan foes. 

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller first called a Grand Jury in northern Virginia to investigate members of the 2016 Trump campaign and members of the Administration of President Donald Trump. Mueller then formed a second Grand Jury in the District of Columbia where a witness allegedly reported that "the only other white male in the room" was the prosecutor.  Any future trial juries may contain more Trump opponents in the District than in Virginia.

9.  EROSION CONTINUED BY EXEMPTING STATE PROSECUTIONS FROM GRAND JURY PREVIEWS AND REVEWS OF POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES:  The U.S. Supreme Court also crippled the Grand Jury protection of citizens from abusive prosecutors when it excluded 99 percent of criminal prosecutions from the Grand Jury requirement.  The vast majority of criminal trials are conducted at the state or local level.

In 1881, Joseph Hurtado was sentenced to death for shooting his friend for having an extended affair with Hurtado's wife.  Hurtado complained that California law did not protect the Fifth Amendment right to a Grand Jury indictment.  It did not even require a pre-trial hearing by a judge who found "probable cause" to support a criminal charge.

The Supreme Court held that states were free to dispose of the process of Grand Jury Review and indictment if their alternative provided "due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment by providing a defendant with notice of the charges against him when he was hauled into court, counsel, the right to call or confront witnesses, a fair trial, and a judgment by a jury.

In declining to require states to provide a Grand Jury process, the Supreme Court held that a Grand Jury at the state level "is merely a preliminary proceeding, and can result in no final judgment except as the consequences of a regular judicial trial, conducted precisely as in cases in indictments."

               Hurtado v. California, 1884.

The Supreme Court again held that a murder conviction properly entered under California law without a Grand Jury indictment did not violate the defendant's federal right to a Grand Jury indictment before a charge by "information," a trial, conviction, and sentence to death.

               McNulty v. California, 1893.

State prosecutions without a Grand Jury indictment were again upheld for a robbery charge filed by a prosecutor's "information" in 1900.  The Court also upheld the defendant's conviction by a jury with less than twelve jurors, as allowed under state law.

               Maxwell v. Dow, 1900.

The Supreme Court also upheld Oregon's statutory decision to eliminate the Grand Jury process when it heard an appeal in a murder case involving a prosecutor's "information" approved by a magistrate who found there was probable cause to allow the case to proceed to trial.

               Lem Moon v. Oregon, 1913.

10.  THE EROSION CONTINUED BY ALLOWING FEDERAL GRAND JURIES TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT WAS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL:  In criminal trials, many types of evidence are excluded from presentation to the jury, either because they are unreliable (such as "hearsay evidence, which are alleged statements by a witness who cannot be examined) or because they were obtained through improper methods (illegal searches, unwarned statements, or forced self-incrimination).

But federal Grand Juries have been weakened as a shield because a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have upheld convictions where panels have been allowed to hear evidence that would be inadmissible at trial before they decide to indict defendants.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a loan shark who was forced to answer Grand Jury questions about evidence which the target argued had been seized illegally from his headquarters.

               United States v. Calandra, 1974.

The Supreme Court held that a Grand Jury could hear evidence about statements made by a defendant who had not received Miranda warnings that would be inadmissible at trial.

               United States v. Mandujano, 1976.

TheSupreme Court upheld a Grand Jury indictment of a tax evader which was based solely on hearsay that the defendant's net worth had increased for three years to a point beyond what was possible on the basis of his reported income.

               Costello v. United States, 1956.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentences for tax evasion which were imposed after a trial triggered by a 1953 Grand Jury indictment which was based on documents involving a 1952 Grand Jury which had improperly compelled the defendant to provide his documents and testify against himself without being advised of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

               Lawn v. United States, 1958.

The Supreme Court held that a Grand Jury may consider evidence from a search or seizure that would be inadmissible at trial under the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, in a case involving a defendant compelled by a Grand Jury to provide a hand-writing sample without probable cause or a warrant.

               United States v. Dionisio, 1973.

The Supreme Court upheld the state conviction of a union president who stole funds from the pension fund even though he claimed that the Grand Jury was biased by unfair media coverage and used improper tactics to obtain evidence which led to an indictment, trial, conviction, and sentence.

               Beck v. Washington, 1962.

11.  EROSION HAS CONTINUED TO WHERE THEY ARE PROSECUTORS' TOOLS:  A federal Grand Jury is no longer a panel where citizens can ask tough questions or seek evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a prosecutor does not have to allow targets, subjects, or witnesses to show grand jurors any evidence that proves their innocence or explains their actions.

               United States v. Williams, 1992.

Judges do not tell Grand Jurors their rights, or advise them of their powers.

Prosecutors tell them what the law says, what the facts are, and what they should say in their indictments.

Prosecutors decide what subpoenas should be issued, what witnesses should be presented, and what questions should be suggested to Grand Jurors.

Prosecutors can decide whether to call defendants, targets, or subjects of a Grand Jury investigation to testify before a Grand Jury.

Prosecutors can force defendants, targets, or subjects of an investigation to assert theirFifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in front of the Grand Jury.

Federal rules bar defendants, targets, subjects, or witnesses for Grand Jury investigations from the presence, guidance, or advice of lawyers when they face the panel.

12.  UNDER THESE RULES, A GRAND JURY WILL "INDICT A HAM SANDWICH": The chief justice of the ew York court system told a magazine reporter in 1985 that, under these conditions, any good prosecutor can persuade a Grand Jury to "indict a ham sandwich."

Later, Sol Wachtler, The Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, said that he wished he had said "a pastrami sandwich" because he is Jewish.

Even later, Judge Wachtler probably wished he had said nothing on thesubject.

By 1992, Judge Wachtler was being touted as a potential candidate for the governorship of New York.  He was teamed with a leading political fundraiser who became his mistress.  Obsessed with her, he began calling her incessantly and arriving at her door costumed as a cowboy.  Judge Wachtler was indicted and spent 15 months in prison for threatening to kidnap his mistress' daughter over a phone line that had been tapped by the FBI.

13.  HOW DOES A FEDERAL GRAND JURY WORK?

Under the federal system, a Grand Jury is a panel of between 16 and 23 people who a drafted to serve a specific term of time to hear evidence of potential crimes.  A majority of at least 12 grand jurors must agree that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with charges and prosecution.

If at least 12 grand jurors agree that there is probable cause to believe thata criminal case should proceed to prosecution or trial, they issue a "true bill" and issue an :indictment."

If less than 12 grand jurors believe that not enough evidence has been presented, the panel presents a "no bill."  But when the term of service expires for a Grand Jury, the prosecutors can try again with a new panel.

For most federal criminal charges, a Grand Jury sits for a few months and meets five days a week.  For comlex cases such as organized crime or political corruption, the Grand Jury meets fewer days each week, but may be extended in six-month increments for up to three years.

You can be drafted as a grand juror if your name appears on lists of registered voters, licensed drivers, or billable consumers of public utilities,

Amazingly, you can now be a federal grand juror even if you are deaf, mute, or do not speak English if you are a citizen and have a translator.

Unlike a trial jury, there is no screening of grand jurors to see if they know about the targets of a grand jury, understand the judicial system, or have biases for or against potential defendants.

Under the current federal system, the Grand Jury is run by the federal prosecutor.  The prosecutor explains what the law is, and how it should work.

Targets of Grand Jury investigations and witnesses are not allowed to have their lawyers present during a Grand Jury Investigation.

Targets and witnesses can be subpoenaed and forced to appear before a Grand Jury. 

They can assert their Fifth Amendment right to decline answering questions on the grounds, but they can then be forced to answer if they are given "transactional immunity" which will protect them from facing charges linked to their testimony.  This happens when a prosecutor shields one target or witness in order to get testimony against another suspect.

The prosecutor can show evidence to a Grand Jury which would be inadmissible at a subsequent trial.  This includes evidence from illegal wire-taps, unreasonable searches and seizures, or the use of unproven hearsay evidence where one person claims that an unavailable person said something.

The prosecutor is not required to show evidence to the grand jurors which tends to exonerate the target of am investigation.  The prosecutor can also refuse to offer the Grand Jury any exculpatory evidence offered by a target or witness.

The prosecutor can also persuade a Grand Jury to issue subpoenas with sweeping demands for records, evidence or testimony from targets, witnesses,  or completely uninvolved persons or companies.  Either refusing to obey such a subpoena or submitting incomplete or misleading answers can become the source of new and separate charges.  Grand Jury subpoenas are almost never quashed because they ask for inadmissible or irrelevant evidence or testimony.

The prosecutor can also seek to interview targets or witnesses before their Grand Jury testimony without informing them of their rights to decline to be interviewed or to have a lawyer at the interview.  Targets or witnesses can be prosecuted for separate offenses if their interview testimony differs from their Grand Jury testimony.

Such interviews do not have to be recorded.  But if the target or witness lies during the interview, or if the interview comments differ from testimony before the Grand Jury, that can trigger new charges.

The prosecutor can call a target or witness to testify before a Grand Jury several times.  If their testimony differs between multiple appearances, they can be prosecuted for separate crimes.  To protect themselves and to refresh their memories, such witnesses should demand transcripts of prior testimony or any notes from pre-testimony interviews.

As is discussed below, and given these amazing powers for prosecutors and sweeping limits on targets and witnesses, you can see why one infamous judge said that any competent prosecutor could persuade a Grand Jury to "indict a ham sandwich."


14.  YOUR RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY'S SHIELD AND SWORD IS VANISHING:

England Killed The Grand Jury In 1933:  To streamline criminal prosecutions of Socialists, saboteurs, and dissenters during the tragic years of trench warfare during WWI, England suspended the use of grand juries in 1917.  That suspension was made permanent by Parliament in 1933.

Today, British prosecutors draft indictments listing the charges and facts supporting the charges and presents them to the trial court.  This is similar to the methods used for most criminal prosecutions in most of the individual states in the United States.

Only Two Countries Still Use Grand Juries Regularly:  Only the United States and Liberia still use Grand Juries, if they ever used them at all.

In The United States, Half Of The States Do Not Use Grand Juries Regularly, If At All:  Two states have dispensed with Grand Juries entirely.  By statute, Connecticut and Pennsylvania have eliminated the use of a Grand Jury to secure a felony indictment.

By statute or practice, another 25 states have sharply reduced their reliance on the Grand Jury.  These include:  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado. Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Minnesota amd 22 other states still favor reliance on the Grand Jury for indictments for serious crimes.  These include, Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

In Minnesota, a Grand Jury is on constant duty in Minneapolis' Hennepin County for murder cases.

15.  DO YOU SUPPORT THESE REFORMS FOR GRAND JURIES:  These reforms have been suggested by a variety of groups who would like to restore the reliance on the Grans Jury.

Tell Targets If A Prosecutor Is Investigating Them:  Prosecutors say that such a requirement would make it harder to investigate, indict, try, and convict criminals if they were informed of the creation and progress of a Grand Jury.  But what if innocent persons were the targets of a prosecutor who was biased against them?  Should they know?

Allow Targts to Have A Lawyer With Them If They Are Called To Testify:  Federal rules specifically exclude anyone from being in the room except for the grand jurors, the witness, the prosecutor, and the person preparing the secret transcript of the proceedings.

Allow Targets to Present Evidence That Tends To Clear Them:  Currently, prosecutors do not have to allow targets, subjects, or witnesses to present evidence or testimony that might exculpate them before the grand jurors vote on whether to indict them for crimes.

Allow Defendants To Have Their Own Transcript Before They Face Trial:  If targets face trial after they are indicted, they can be charged with perjury of their trial testimony differs on even the smallest detail if they contradict anything they said months or years earlier before the Grand Jury.  Such an alleged contradiction also can make it more likely that a trial jury will convict them on th1e main charge.  Should defendants be allowed to refresh their memories and plan their trial strategies by reviewing the now-secret transcripts of their Grand Jury testimony?

Allow Indicted Targets To Have All Transcripts Of All Witnesses Before Trial:  If their lives, freedom, or property are on the line at trial, should defendants be allowed to see the identity and evidence presented by witnesses to the grand jurors?  This could discourage some witnesses from telling the whole truth because they fear vengeance by defendants.  But should defendants know what was said against them for the purpose of planning trial strategy, impeaching witnesses at trial, or challenging abuses by the prosecutor?

Allow Targets To Decline To Appear Before A Grand Jury:  A target can assert his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to testify on the grounds that he might tend to incriminate himself.  But he must assert that right on each question asked, and becomes increasingly suspect in the eyes of the grand jurors.  Should a target be allowed to avoid that process by simply declining to appear before the panel?

Tell Witnesses Of Their Rights:  Before they testify before a Grand Jury, should an independent lawyer be appointed to inform their rights to decline to testify for certain reasons or to decline to provide documents or other evidence for certain reasons?

Require A Judge To Inform Grand JurorsOf Their Rights And Powers:  If a Grand Jury is to act as a shield for innocent persons from the charges sought by a biased prosecutor, should a judge ve required to brief grand jurors of their rights to subpoena evidence other than the evidence presented by  the prosecutor or to ask questions other than those written by the prosecutor?

Allow Lawyers To Be In The Room If Witnesses Haave Not Received Immunty For Their Testimony:  Witnesses are often offered "transactional immunity" so that they cannot be indicted and charged subsequently on the basis of their testimony.  In the absence of such immunity, should witnesses be allowed to have their lawyer present for their testimony?

16.  SHOULD REGULAR CITIZENS GET TO SUMMON GRANDJURIES?:  In the American colonies and in most state courts prior to 1900, private citizens could petition a judge to summon a Grand Jry to investigate whether a government official had committed crimes or deprived dissidents of their rights.  Citizens could also hire lawyers to pursue such an investigation.

Prior to 1944, private citizens could also procure such an investigation in the federal judicial system.  In that year, the new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure scrapped citizen-triggered Grand Juries.  After that, a federal Grand Jury could only be requested by a prosecutor and summoned by an order of a federal judge.

But six states still allow groups of private citizens to gather petitions and secure a judge's order to empanel a Grand Jury and investigate either private crimes or government officials for abuses or misconduct.  By statute, these states include:   Kansas, Nebraska, New , Nevada, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City Bombing:  On April 19, 1995, terrorists used a truck bomb to destroy the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people who included many children at a day care center.

Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted and later executed in 2001 for the bombing.  His accomplice, Terry Nichols, is serving 17 life sentences without the possibility of parole on federal and state convictions for the murders.

McVeigh and Nichols never disclosed whether they had any other accomplices in the complex bombing and escape schemes.  But using an Oklahoma statute, a group of citizens gathered 13,500 signatures and summoned a county Grand Jury to investigate whether there was a broader conspiracy and whether the government suspected such a conspiracy before the bombing. The panel never produced a "true bill" on those questions.

Truman Beats Dewey:  It was suspected that the County Attorney in and for the County of New York City was taking bribes from ganglords during a Grand Jury investigation of organized crime in the late 1930s.

Using a New York statute, a group of citizens empanelled a Grand Jury led by prosecutor Thomas Dewey.  Dewey used his fame in leading the Grand Jury to indict the gangsters to move up the political ladder.  He also convicted mobster Lucky Luciano, many political leaders, and the head of the New York Stock Exchange in different cases.  He was elected Governor in 1942.

As the Republican presidential nominee in 1944, he held FDR to his narrowest margin.  As the GOP presidential nominee in 1948, he lost by an eyelash to Harry Truman.

Late-Term Abortions:  Wichita is a hotbed of activism by abortion opponents.  Dr. George Tiller was nationally known as one of the few doctors performing late-term abortions up until the moment of delivery at a clinic in that city.

Tiller's clinic was bombed in 1985.  A woman shot Tiller in both arms in 1993.

Under Kansas law, citizens can impanel a Grand Jury by collecting the signatures of the equivalent of two percent of the people who voted in the county's last election, plus 100 people.  In Wichita, that required about 4,000 signatures.  Activists twice collected over 8,000 signatures.

In 2006, citizens impanelled a Grand Jury against Tiller to investigate the death of a Texas woman who had received a late-term abortion from Tiller in violation of state law.  The panel did not indict Tiller.

In 2008, a citizen-triggered Grand Jury investigated iller for breaking state law in 15 cases.

In 2009, Tiller was shot to death during Sunday services at his church.

Pornography and Abortion:  Citizen petition drives in 2008 used a Kansas law to trigger Grand Jury investigations of pornography shops, as well as abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park.

The grand jury investigations of pornography shops led to indictments and charges filed against over 20 operators.

Judge Wayne Griego:  Under the Constitution of New Mexico, citizens can trigger Grand Jury investigations of public officials by collecting signatures of at least two percent of the county's registered voters.

Albuquerque judge Wayne Griego had been in trouble before.  He was disciplined for instructing his secretary to sign orders finding guilt of defendants while he was away on vacation.

After that discipline, Judge Griego outraged citizens by fixing tickets for his family, friends, and court employees.  In 2008, citizens filed enough signatures to convene a Grand Jury to investigate the judge.

Before the grand jury could act, a complaint was filed against Judge Griego through the judicial system.  The Supreme Court of New Mexico removed the judge from the bench later that year.

Should Minnesota Restore The Citizen-Called Grand Jury?:  The Legislature could pass a law reqiring a Grand Jury to investigate charges against a specific person if a group collected 7,500 signatures and posted a bond of $100 per signature.

To discourage abuses of this system, the bond would be paid to the target for legal costs and inconvenience if the Grand Jury did not return a :true bill" of indictment.  Otherwise, the bond would cover the costs of the Grand Jury to taxpayers.