Preview

Purpose Of The Grand Jury

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
998 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Purpose Of The Grand Jury
“The purpose of the Grand Jury is to hear evidence against an accused person (or persons) and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial” (Worrall, 2016, p. 184). In other words, whether or not there is enough probable cause to indict a person of a felony crime or in cases of “great public or political significance” (Worrall, 2016, p. 186). The Grand Jury has significant investigative power and “in some case’s is able to issue an indictment faster than preliminary hearings” (Worrall, 2016, p. 186). It also provides a tremendous amount of privacy for the members of the Grand Jury and certain witnesses. Grand Jury’s are also afforded certain investigative immunities and subpoena powers. However, the Grand Jury …show more content…
While often mistaken, it is not the responsibility of the Grand Jury to decide a guilt verdict. Their initiative is to ensure that due process is carried out and that the premise of probable cause is not dismissed for some of the more serious offenses. Although highly controlled by the prosecution, the Grand Jury is not to be tampered with or manipulated by the prosecution. Any attempt by the prosecutor to manipulate or malfeasance in the judicial system should be reported by the Grand Jury (Johnston, 1974, p. 160). It is this manipulation of this asset that can turn the Grand Jury into a (tool) for the prosecution instead of a patriot for justice. As in the case of State v Joao where prosecutorial manipulation was used to get the Grand Jury to indict Mr. Joao based upon the prosecuting attorney’s statement of the credibility of the defendant’s testimony (Johnston, 1974, p. 162). The Grand Jury has an inherent duty to protect “citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action and exonerate any citizen of any false allegation” (Fully Informed jury Association,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Prosecutors are gathering evidence to present to a grand jury, which will decide whether to make an indictment.…

    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    A good example of the lack of professionalism with the grand jury are the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, the grand jury’s decision not to prosecute syndicated police officers has placed the process in public scrutiny. In the arrest of Eric Garner and his tragic death for selling untaxed cigarettes. Officers tried to arrest him by using a chokehold and compressed his chest…

    • 64 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Smith V Cain Ap Go Po

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The court case of Smith V Cain was taken to the Petit jury in which the evidence was presented was favoring Cain due to the fact that he was an eyewitness who matched Juan Smith to one of the several gunmens at the house in 1995. The Petit jury was selected to hear this particular case in 2011 due to the fact that the Grand Jury is where the cases are sent to decide whether the case should be upheld and proceed to the next court or if the case has no real merit and essentially would be a waste for both of the parties to pursue a farther hearing in a higher court. The petit jury had originally ruled in favor of Cain and had ruled in favor of not granting Smith’s appeal. Smith had appealed saying that the trial was unfair and he didn’t…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A grand jury is a group of jurors who hear testimony for the prosecution's witnesses as well as a statement about the crime from the prosecutor. A grand jury is run mostly by the prosecutor, and although the suspect does have a right to speak at a grand jury hearing, he or she can only be cross-examined by the prosecutor, and the defense attorney plays no role.Most grand juries contain between sixteen and twenty-three jurors.A grand jury is closed to the public.Most grand jury hearings consist only of the witnesses, the jurors and the prosecutor.A grand jury consists of jurors who serve for the period of a court term, which can be up to eighteen months.…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Chapter 5 describes how, within the last century, mounting scholarly evidence has exposed institutional flaws within our judicial and police systems, resulting in the convictions of innocent persons for capital crimes. In some cases, overzealous behavior by police and prosecutors, led to the imprisonment of “factually” innocent defendants. While police sometimes coerced confessions or failed to conduct full investigations, prosectors and judges failed to evidence which might exonerate the defendant. Other judicial violations found through study included failure to follow courtroom procedures related to rule of law. One of the first wrongful conviction initiatives was through a congressional investigation in 1912. Although a noble undertaking for its time, the reports was flawed in its evidentiary compilation. The data was poorly collected and its findings poorly deduced. According to the report, no innocent person had been executed by the Federal government.…

    • 509 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Upon reviewing the case, a grand jury determined that prosecutors had enough evidence to constitute probable cause, or that the charges are reasonable based on the facts presented. The case against Hernandez is now one step closer to trial.…

    • 1191 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Michael Brown Debate

    • 799 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Sorry, dead wrong. The purpose of a grand jury is only to see if there was probable cause that a crime may have been committed. What evidence is presented is selected by the Prosecutor. There is no defense attorney, no defense presentation. It's not about guilt or innocence, only to see if there's the bare minimum of evidence that there may have been a crime. It's EXACTLY the same barrier as a police officer has in order to stop you, probable cause.…

    • 799 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the play Twelve Angry Men, a teenaged boy is indicted of committing premeditated murder, the most serious felony tried in the United States justice system. While initially it appears the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, after careful deliberation from the jury, additional evidence surfaces, showing the boy may not be guilty. Additional evidence found led the jurors to impeach the witness’s accounts, due to inconstancies in their testimonies. For these reasons and others I believe the boy was not guilty. For example, one of the most convincing pieces of evidence from the prosecution is an eyewitness account from a woman who saw the boy murder his father from the windows of a passing el train. However, the jurors discover the women’s…

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Oj Simpson Trial

    • 938 Words
    • 4 Pages

    As expected, the presiding judge ordered that Simpson be held without bail. The following day, a grand jury was called to determine whether to indict him for the murders. Two days later, on June 23, the grand jury was dismissed as a result of excessive media coverage, which could have influenced its neutrality. Rather than a grand jury hearing, a probable cause hearing was held to determine whether or not to bring Simpson to trial, which was a minor victory for Simpson's lawyers who would now be able to get to evidence as it was being presented by the prosecution to a grand jury hearing. For the defense case Simpson hired a team of high-profile lawyers, including F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, Johnnie Cochran, Gerald Uelmen Carl E. Douglas and Shawn…

    • 938 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The prosecution can expose whether Witness and Defendant have colluded in an effort to mislead the jury, or, conversely, can clear an innocent defendant. In sum, by granting use immunity and assuming Witness' truthfulness, 2 1 we can avoid the two flaws of convicting an innocent defendant or freeing a guilty defendant. The state of the law in this area invites several observations about evidentiary and constitutional law. Forbidding Defendant from trying to benefit from Witness' assertion of the fifth amendment is an example of the choice evidence law often makes: to exclude problematic evidence rather than to search for ways to help the jury identify and understand estimation problems. Although the import of Witness' privilege assertion is not pellucid, the court could help the jury more than it does in the typical trial by noting the inferences the jury might draw. 22 Alternatively, as this article suggests in Part V, the law might adopt a model of admissibility loosely drawn from discovery rules. Under this model, Defendant (and perhaps any party) could introduce any relevant evidence as long as he shared it with the prosecution far enough in advance of trial to enable the prosecution to investigate. Finally, we need to ask whether Defendant's sixth amendment right to compulsory process includes the right to try to profit from Witness' fifth amendment privilege assertion. Arguably, the sixth amendment topples the categorical rule that no litigant, not even the…

    • 4738 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    One of the reasons that grand juries are almost inexistent today is that it is so heavily criticized by so many because the defendant is not represented today in the process. In many cases, the defendant can be easily persuaded by the prosecutor to disclose information that can be very useful, and is likely to be used during the final trial. Because the defendant is not represented, rarely will a grand jury decide against the wishes of the prosecution. Disbarred former Chief Judge of New York, Judge Sol Watchler, was once quoted as saying that it is so easy for the prosecutor to persuade the grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” Grand juries are selected by the local prosecutor, and in many occasions jurors have served several times before, and have a proven record to indict. No states have a regulation that will limit the number of grand juries that the prosecutor can assemble before finally getting the indictment he or she wants. Unfortunately, if an indictment is not acquired the first time, the prosecutor can form as many juries as…

    • 2747 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Jury Stereotypes

    • 941 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Furthermore, while members of the jury are instructed to ignore and avoid any publicity or outside news about the trial, a case so large and so public would be impossible for the jurors to avoid and, therefore, stay impartial.…

    • 941 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Kathryn’s duty to do justice as the prosecutor, also applies during plea bargaining, whereby, a persons guilt must be established based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the prosecutor’s primary objective “is to avoid punishing an innocent person. Because a prosecutor is obligated to act in all stages in the criminal justice process consistently with the sovereign's view that it is more important to avoid punishing the innocent, this principle applies to a prosecutor's efforts in resolving cases pre-trial” (Stern 1034). Regardless of how confident the prosecutor is of the defendant’s guilt, the prosecutor must ensure he does not offer a plea bargain that would result in an innocent individual to plead guilty as such an offer would subordinate the purpose of preventing an innocent individual from being punished to that of punishing a guilty individual, “thereby failing to strike the balance that justice requires” (Stern 1035). O’Hear suggests that a defendant should have the opportunity to convey their side of the story in order for the defendant to avoid getting convicted if they are innocent. It would also be beneficial to enhance the defendants perceptions of procedural justice by developing an objective criteria in order to direct plea negotiations and explain the prosecutors…

    • 1578 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    I think that criminal justice officials who knowingly take part in such misconduct should be tried for criminal content and sentenced to jail time. They should also lose their license or be fired from their position. Many prosecutors simply get a slap on the wrist for withholding evidence that could prove the defendant to be innocent because they are getting a conviction nonetheless. Many of these criminal justice officials knowingly participate in the wrongful conviction of innocent people and they should be tried…

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trial By Jury

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages

    It isn’t arduous to see why some may question the efficiency of trial by jury and whether it should, and is able to, continue to discover innocence or guilt. Regarding the trial of Vicky Pryce, the failure of the jury within the hearing conjured ridicule and disdain from the judge and the media. The case deeply unsettled the trust of many in the system. The eight women and four men were dismissed after illustrating “fundamental deficits of understanding” (Jacobson, Hunter & Kirby, 2015, p. 55). Their profuse questions for the judge were deemed as unintelligent and unnecessary and so a costly re-trial was required. Consequently, this ordeal provoked a stronger desire for the abolition of trial by jury, to be replaced by a single judge as a more…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics