Talk:Grand jury

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Napoleonic Code#Code of criminal instruction|Code of Criminal Instruction]] The anchor (#Code of criminal instruction) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Systems with both grand jury and preliminary hearings

California is a jurisdiction that has both preliminary hearings and grand juries. The prosecution may use either method, at its option. Typically the preliminary hearing method is used when a suspect is arrested by the police (say, with a person caught in the act), while the grand jury method is used after a lengthy investigation concludes a particular suspect is guilty and should be charged (say, with white-collar criminals, or those without an immediate flight risk).

As an example using famous people, consider O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. OJ was accused of murder, but he ran. After the infamous chase, he was arrested. The following Monday he was brought to an arraignment, and soon after to a preliminary hearing.

In contrast, Michael Jackson was recently accused of child molestation. I suppose because of the long investigation, his popularity, his recognizability, and lack of flight risk, the Santa Barbara DA decided to indict him, which is unusual but can happen in California.

-- Myria 05:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is a grand jury different from a regular jury?

I came to this page hoping to find the answer to one question--is a grand jury made up of the same (random) people as a regular jury, or is a seat on a grand jury an elected or appointed position, or what? Thanks for all your help! [unsigned] I also came looking for this information. Any additions in this area would be helpful. (Melewen 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I think the article answered the question as best it could. Every state has different rules concerning the selection of members, how many sit on it, or what kind of cases they are allowed to hear. I think the problem is the word, "jury". In old England, after Cromwell reorganized the justice system, it was called the Grand Inqisition. We relate "jury" to an unbiased group of people who are equally selected by the prosecutor and defendant. This is not the case with a Grand Jury. What is unfair about the word "jury" is that when you hear that someone has been "indicted by a Grand Jury", you tend to think that person was tried and convicted; thus, persumed guilty before trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.32.58 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the grand jury were a fourth level of our tri-level government, that is composed of people of the land, (not people who fill official elected seats of government), and the constitution does not restrict them in any way nor govern them by legislation? If the tri-level government uses checks and balances (which have been pillaged and destroyed by attorneys)^{{see the dumbing down of america)} to protect the constitution, then the grand jury is the people's check and balance on government to protect their freedom. Not under any attorney's or judge's thumb. Suijur, sui juris 19:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction specific

The time I was called for jury duty (In TN), it appeared to me during oriention that all the members of the grand jury were chosen out of those trying to get out of regular jury duty, (in that county an on-call basis for six weeks.) By contrast, the Grand Jury was only expected to take the rest of the day. [Small county] Joncnunn 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=

- Also, how many people make up a grand jury? And typically, how long do they sit for? Just for one case? or for a specified period of time unless needed for longer?

It depends on the jurisdiction, but I believe many do it the same way as New York. In NY, the Grand Jury is made up of 23 citizens picked randomly from the jury pool. Generally, they sit for 4 weeks and hear as many cases as are available in that time period. There are also "special" Grand Juries that are convened for one specific investigation which sit until the investigation is completed. There are also investigative grand juries formed which sit for a year or so, but meet only once a week. Tufflaw July 7, 2005 13:28 (UTC)

In Maryland, Grand Juries are similarly made up of 23 citizens of whichever County (or city) the grand jury will be sitting in. However, grand juries in Maryland serve 4 month terms (chosen every January, May and September). Because of this long tenure, they are not picked completely at random. Instead, petit jurors are asked to fill out a form if they are willing to participate on a grand jury. Grand jurors are chosen only from those who have agreed to commit themselves to the 4-month term. For that reason, many grand jurors are retirees or citizens otherwise able to commit themselves to a 4-month term. In Baltimore City, grand juries have a second duty aside from indicting people. Each term, a judge of the Circuit Court issues a "charge" to the grand jury to study, research and investigate a particular issue of public policy and to report any problems or recommendations for improvement. In the past, grand juries have explored a variety of issues including healthcare access for incarcerated offenders, drug addiction, child support enforcemen options and alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.

I think especially given the high interest of grand juries due to the "CIA leak case," it would be valuable to include in this article who the members of a grand jury are, how they are selected, and what responsibilities and expectations are on them (for example, petit juries can be sequestered, etc.). DJProFusion 16:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that news reports of the grand jury examining the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson say the jury consisted of only 12 members, not the 16 to 23 mentionied in the Wikipedia article. Marchino61 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure and timeline

Is there a general sequence of events with a grand jury? I'm trying to follow the Valerie Plame leak investigation and was wondering if there are milestones to watch for? How does a grand jury inestigation start? When does it end?

reversion

I added an important fact(something that actually exists) concerning decisions of a grand jury and this was edited out. I am new but even provided a foot note with source. If this article is to be factual and truthful then why would someone, arbitrarily and capriciously, edit out important information.

I intend to undo, redo, or edit(as soon as I fiure out the correct or best choise), to correct this. There are THREE choises(I am still researching other sources and states) a grand jury can make and not TWO. I think all complete rewrites, without community support, should be undone.

Is there someone that can help me understand things more? Is there an editor or someone with experience that can add my section back? I like to think I contributed important information and do not know how(or care to learn) about editing wars. If additional citation is needed I will provide this. Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently User:71.64.134.131 completely rewrote this page. I have reverted it back to its old version, for the following reasons:

suspected copyvio: the entire article was rewritten in one single edit, as though copied-and-pasted. Furthermore, the original second sentence (before somebody fixed it) began "In the United States we have two juries..." which suggests the text was written as some sort of essay or lecture, not an encyclopedia article.
the new version was not wikified or formatted properly (until somebody fixed the latter), and was written by an editor with no other contribs before or since. The former two were fixable and the last doesn't disqualify anybody from editing, of course; but they are reasons to be skeptical about how well the author understands the wikipedia
in particular, he/she made no attempt to work collaboratively with the article as already in place.
likewise, the new revision was often unencyclopedic in tone, and occasionally crossed the line to start to give the author's personal view of grand juries.
while considerably longer than the previous (and now present) version, the new version didn't contain much more information. It was thus harder to read.

If I am wrong in my copyvio suspicions, then all the other objections above are actionable and the new version could in theory be fixed (rather than discarded). However, I believe that would take too much work to really be worthwhile; the old version was working fine and can do so again. Doops | talk 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support of Section needed

If there's going to be a criticism of section, there needs to be a support of section. Joncnunn 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Jury: origin, history, purpose, etc.

Previously I wrote a comment on "Jury nullification" discussion page. Here's some material on "Grand Jury":

http://www.rangeguide.net/ballard.htm

http://www.rangeguide.net/gjhistry.htm

http://www.rangeguide.net/rules.htm

http://www.rangeguide.net/gjmemo.htm

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm

--SPavel 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the number of states using Grand Juries doesn't match the dayton school of law info. See http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/stateg.htm which indicates that all states have provisions for grand juries. Whether the states use them in practice is not indicated.

Local sections should be nuked

The local sections should be nuked. This is an overview article. The specific jurisdiction sections are way too local. Americasroof (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is within the scope of WikiProject law. A grand jury has two choices by accepted standards. A true bill and a no true bill. In the state of Louisiana there is a 3rd choice. By "nuking" local sections the article would not be accurate. Otr500 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana should definitely stay but the two sections "Circuit Grand Juries in Kentucky" and "County grand juries in California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada" don't seem to add anything unique. Americasroof (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==You are right. I read those parts again and there is information that is probably more general than necessary while certainly not unique.

I think this page needs collaboration to refine the contents. It is hard to define, if local information is excluded, what can stay and what may not. I would personally like to know if any other jurisdictions have more than two choices.

I ran across the third choice(in Louisiana) by accident. Records that I find show the choice has been exercised only two times. This is certainly unique as it is proof that there are, in some jurisdictions, more than two choices.

I did not add any more than I did #1- to keep it simple, #2- I am new and figured a simple edit would be left alone. Louisiana could probably have a seperate law section because the whole system(based largely on Napoleonic code)is unique by U.S. standards and common law. There is not even reciprocity between other states concerning lawyers which can complicate things like the "choice of law" article.

I forgot to sign the above but my section was edited out anyway. Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the information on California I would point out that the primary point was that county level Grand Juries in California have a unique role of government oversight as opposed to just criminal indictment. --signed Glenn P. (sorry I don't have a user name)

Obsolete repression

The entry does a fairly good job of noting the unconstitutionality of the Grand Jury however there was no real details about how such a violation of law is obsolete given the extant legal due process in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

I'm boldly removing it. It's not actually about the topic of the article. It should be at the other end of that libertarian dude's redlink in the lede. It is clearly POV-pushing in this article. It is not as if this is a "pro-Grand juries" article in need of balance, it is an article about Grand juries, and this section is out of place. 76.210.75.165 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree a lot of the Criticism seems to not have a neutral point of view with the primary source being a very anti grand jury/ anti F.B.I group which I feel is not a very reliable source since the big goal of this group is a petition to remove the grand jury concept form the United stats constitution. I would feel ok with the information if it could be provided by a more neutral source. Andaries (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 166.127.1.215

March 24th, 2011 user 166.127.1.215 has placed three instances of obscenities in the article. I removed these. I am an inexperienced user and I don't know how to report this, so I thought I'd put a notification here for a possible ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabbass (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section and source 22

Today the Criticism section was added into this and I have a huge issue with how it is written which appears to have a strong POV against the grand jury. When it should be neutral on the subject.

Also one of the main cited source number 22. I feel is a Questionable source. The group is very Politically against Grand Jury as well as the F.B.I and their article on the Grand Jury concept is a scathing article about how the Grand Jury is a tool of the F.B.I to oppress people which isn't the purpose of a grand Jury at all nor has it ever been in the United states. Also it doesn't reflect the Grand Jury Concept as a whole. It has no Neutral point or any real information and is filled with a lot of opinions. --Andaries (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and request that its author(s) or supporter(s) should not simply put it back in again. If such criticisms can be found to be discussed in reliable sources, such as articles in scholarly law journals, that material should be in here. But the sources cited in notes 21 through 23 to the section are not at all of that order. Sources should also be cited from the original, wherever possible. --Wikiain (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "Criticism" section by definition has a strong POV against the subject being criticized. Andaries, just because you didn't like it (or because you didn't like one of the references), you signed up for a Wikipedia account, and removed the entire section? How neutral is that? Please also be aware of WP:SPA. In agreement with Wikiain, I have removed "source number 22", I have restored the Criticism section, and added another reference, which I hope you will find more acceptable. -- Astellix (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph

In 112 S.Ct. 1735 504 U.S. 36 118 L.Ed.2d 352 UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr. No. 90-1972. Argued Jan. 22, 1992. Decided May 4, 1992, the original intent of the grand jury established by the Magna Carta is upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the opinion: "This Court's cases relying upon that power deal strictly with the courts' control over their own procedures, whereas the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." This is a clearly wordered opinion in direct contradiction to the most reasonable interpretation of the first sentence of the Wikipedia article: "A grand jury is an arm of the court". Jim Bowery (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate having available a clearly worded legal opinion, but for me at least, this has not brought clear understanding. After the specific statement that a grand jury is separate from, and not presided over by, the courts, every described facet of operations for a grand jury seems to involve a court, and no procedures, personnel or institutions outside the court system. We cannot but be suspicious of technical concepts that do not have common sense explanations. Aboctok (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying that probable cause has already been established vs. garnering probable cause

Would someone in the know please clarify this in the article? Is a grand jury supposed to evaluate only a claimant's assertion that probable cause has already been established? That is, if the grand jury finds that probable cause becomes established during the grand jury proceedings but also finds that the claimant did not have probable cause prior to the proceedings, should the grand jury issue an indictment? Also, has the answer to this question evolved over time and/or does it vary by geography?

Thanks 192.35.44.24 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to arrest, timing appears to be key: "whether at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [the] knowledge [of the police], and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense." In particular, probable cause garnered after the fact is insufficient for justifying an arrest. Does this factor of timing apply to a grand jury's considerations, or is it okay for a grand jury to issue an indictment based upon information that the prosecutor didn't have? 66.194.253.20 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

ABA Grand Jury FAQ is a dead link. Exists in External Links and References (18). http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernauld (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the minimum size of a grand jury in the USA is not 16, it is 12 ... or lower?

In the lede it is asserted that grand juries range in size from 16 to 23 jurors. But in Missouri it is 12, as stated in numerous recent discussions about the grand jury that has begun hearing the case about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. At least one such possible reference appeared in the New York Times, and numerous others in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, visible at the stltoday.com site. 72.251.70.112 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that still use Grand Juries?

I was hoping to learn what nations besides the U.S. still use the Grand Jury. Could this information be added, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.156.137 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formed how?

Unless I'm very mistaken, this article gives no indication who has the authority to convene a grand jury, nor anything about its membership other than that the people are citizens. E.g. are you subpoena'd to become a member? Is there a voir dire process or is it simply whoever is grabbed? Is it a full-time commitment for a period of time (open-ended or closed-ended)? Etc. I am sure the answer to this has been different in different times & places, but I'm sure there is some pattern. For example, I'm sure that at some point these were composed of male land-owners and eventually that was widened, but in what era? - Jmabel | Talk 14:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who sits on a Grand Jury? How are the members chosen?

Unless I read the main article too quickly, in terms of how the Grand jury (federal) currently operates in the US, how are the people who sit on the Grand jury chosen? Are there specific qualifications or disqualifications? And how is an impartial selection achieved? Can a jury be chosen who's members might be known to be friendly or hostile to the state, the plaintiff, the defendant, etc? Can Grand jury members later speak, write or otherwise convey their jury experience with the public?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.2.94.117 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If they find the accusation true,"

Could anyone unpack this? As I read it (from Europe), a Grand Jury in the US essentially has the same role as a Director of Public Prosecutions in common law jurisdictions and as an examining magistrate or equivalent in most of the rest of Europe. The judgement (opinion) being exercised is "are there a reasonable grounds for a case (accusation) to go to trial". There is no possibility of a guilty or not guilty verdict since the case for the defence has not been heard. So there is no finding of truth in the accusation, only that it is credible and not frivolous. What have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 Cleanup + Merger proposal

1) Removing troves of unsourced or under-sourced material (most of the article text) in a few days if proper citations to secondary sources are still missing. I did something similar on Grand juries in the United States.

2) Should we merge Grand juries in the United States into this article? It seems to be one of the only countries with grand juries still and is now quite lightweight and might fit better over here (especially after this article is cleaned-up) Superb Owl (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Grand juries in the USA satisfy GNG and are indepedently notable of grand juries generally, eg [1] [2] [3] and many other sources. Grand juries were not invented in the USA. They were invented in England, they were of great importance in the British Empire for hundreds of years, and recentism is not a reason to Americanize this article. The article Grand juries in the United States has been disrupted by the systematic mass removal of apparently relevant accurate verifiable content, apparently in an attempt to force a merger. For example, merely quoting the Fifth Amendment verbatim (as opposed to inserting an original interpretation or analysis or explanation etc of it) is not original research. Indeed, it is quoted by periodical articles [4] and treatises [5] on grand jury charging in US law. The account that did this is a WP:SLEEPER account that was largely inactive from creation in 2016 to the end of 2022. And I do not support the systematic removal of relevant accurate verifiable content from this article either. James500 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500, I am more than happy to keep them separate - was simply posing the question.

By all means, feel free to add back in material that you think is notable and supported by reliable sources on either article. I am a bit confused I guess about primary vs. secondary - I get that primary is allowed in some cases, but secondary helps to establish notability. That's why I removed a lot of primary sources from the other article (and considering removing some from here pending this discussion) because it wasn't clear they were notable enough and seemed like excessive detail and original research. Superb Owl (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]