Exploring the Grand Jury - Part 1 of 4

I've always been a fan of the NBC Television show Law & Order. As the police bring information and a suspect to the New York City District Attorney's office one can almost count on someone questioning the validity or strength of the evidence provided. Was it obtained legally? Is it damning enough? Will it convince the jury of the suspect's guilt?

At about this point in the dramatic dialogue is when I start to prepare myself for the intensity of the moment that is coming up. With great anticipation, I steel myself to hear the inevitable phrase that brings men who are much larger and meaner than I crashing to their knees, cringing in fear. I'm talking about the moment someone in the DA's office is sure to say, "Let's take it to the Grand Jury!"

Wow! The title itself sounds royal, right up there with God Almighty on the reverence scale! The Grand Jury….

So, what is the Grand Jury and why does the mere mention of it evoke feelings of awe and fear in the average American? MauryNewsNet.com will try to answer those questions for our readers in the next few days and explore how the answers apply to the lives of us and the people around us.

In the first part of this four part series, I'll tell you what the Grand Jury consists of and provide you with a basic knowledge of how it operates. In part two of four, I'll give some of the reasons given to explain the need for secrecy. I'll also share details of my personal experience with a Grand Jury and impressions and observations gained as a result. In part three, I'll share the details of a recent case in Maury County, Tennessee that was presented to the Grand Jury and how the case was dealt with. I'll also explore allegations that have been made suggesting possible misconduct in the matter. Finally, I'll conclude the series with what options are available if one chooses to contest the findings of the Grand Jury.

A system designed to act as a buffer between England's Monarchy and commoners accused of crimes over 900 years ago, the grand jury is representative of common law and arrived in America with the first Settlers from England. One of the first references of the grand jury in American history was made when it was learned the Royal Governors were ordered to find those who defied the throne and return them to Britain for trial and execution on the charges of high treason!

Samuel Adams in a letter to Darius Sessions dated December 28th, 1772 said that the grand jury was "one of the greatest Bulwarks of the Liberty of the Subject; instituted for the very Purpose of preventing Mischeife (sic) being done by false Accusers." He cited the 25th Act of Parliament in which King Edward the 3rd ruled that "none shall be taken unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good & lawful People of the same Neighbourhood, where such Deeds be done - And, "if any thing be done against the same it shall be redressd & holden for none."

Although common law was established in the Colonies, no guarantee to be tried by ones' peers existed until many years after The Constitution was written. It wasn't until the Bill of Rights was ratified that it became American law that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. (the 5th Amendment http://www.constitution.org/gje/gj_01.txt)

Today, although each state has differing rules with regard to grand juries, the majority use grand juries to charge any felony offenses that may result in a prison sentence. In Tennessee, citizens have the constitutional right to be charged by presentment or indictment, which are legal documents certifying that the grand jury has checked out the accusations made against a defendant and they believe there is enough evidence to support the charges.

The 900 year history of the grand jury is quite interesting and most scholars agree that it was originally intended as a means for citizens to influence the shape of the workings of representative government as it applied to jurisprudence. Throughout that history, the grand jury has been challenged by many circumstances, but still survives.

In Tennessee, the formation, responsibilities and authority of the grand jury is explained in Rule 6 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedures. The grand jury is impaneled by the court for which it has jurisdiction and will serve a specified term, which in Maury County is three months. The jury is comprised of 12 members of the jury pool whose names are randomly selected in open court from a receptacle containing the names of all qualified jurors in the county. The first 12 names drawn, along with a grand jury foreman who has been appointed by the court, will serve the court until dismissed by the judge.

The grand jury is then sworn in by taking an oath that reads in part, "you will diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all offenses given you in charge, or otherwise brought to your knowledge, committed or triable within this county; that you will keep secret the state's counsel, the other jurors', and your own; that you will present no person from hatred, malice, or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor, or affection, or for any reward, or the promise or hope thereof, but you will present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your understanding (emphasis added)." The judge then instructs the grand jury of its extremely broad powers and duties and gives them a brief lesson in the law as it applies to their duties.

The powers of the grand jury are expansive. Not only do they have inquisitorial powers over and authority to indict anyone purported to have committed a crime, but they also have free and unrestricted access to all county offices and buildings, as well as the authority to examine all records and papers of all county officers that are in any way connected with their duties.

The duties of the grand jury are not limited to the obvious. Besides addressing all the criminal cases brought by the District Attorney General and other members of the grand jury, they are also charged with the following:

1. Inquire into the condition and management of prisons and other county buildings and institutions within the county.

2. Inquire into the condition of the county treasury.

3. Inquire into the correctness and sufficiency of the bonds of county officers.

4. Inquire into the abuse of office by state or local officers.

According to General Sessions Judge Bobby Sands, after the grand jury has been impaneled it basically becomes an autonomous entity with extensive authority. This means the grand jury acts independently and is not required to answer to anyone or explain their findings. Although the prosecutor is available upon the grand jury's request to answer legal questions and prepare indictments, neither they or any other person or officer are permitted to be present when the question is taken upon the finding of an indictment.

This leads me to a subject that has caused much debate and considerable doubt in the history of the grand jury. Nearly every aspect of a grand jury hearing is cloaked in secrecy. With the exception of witnesses who have been issued a subpoena to testify, none of the people present inside the grand jury may reveal any matters occurring before a grand jury. The rule of secrecy binds anyone with access to the proceedings including the jurors, prosecutor, court reporters and clerks. If anyone reveals grand jury information, they can be charged with obstructing justice, criminal contempt and conspiracy. If found guilty of the charges, they can be fined and/or imprisoned.

Many critics of the grand jury have referred to the secrecy factor and lack of accountability of the jurors as an open invitation to corruption and outside influence affecting the findings of the jury. All they are required to do after examining the evidence and questioning witnesses is decide if there is adequate evidence to suggest the defendant be indicted or "true billed." If they find that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges, they return a "no true bill" to the prosecutor, and the defendant is never charged. A prosecutor can, of course, try again with another grand jury, or on rare occasions, can re-present a case to the same grand jury. If a prosecutor is going to re-present a case to the same grand jury, he or she will probably bring in additional evidence, and may wait a while before doing so.

So what does all of this leave us with? In The Abolition of the Grand Jury, C. E. Chiperfield wrote, "The principal objection which can be urged against the grand jury, as now constituted, is the absolute personal irresponsibility of the individual juror attendant upon the performance of his duties. He is a law unto himself; no power can regulate him and no power can control him. He can be called before no earthly tribunal, except his own conscience, to account for his action. He can pursue an enemy for personal motives of revenge; he can favor a friend or political associate; he can advance and maintain before the jury by argument ideas that he would never father in any other place; he can shirk responsibility by voting to turn the guilty loose, pleading for mercy for the confessed criminal and the next moment cast his vote to indict the innocent, but friendless accused; ignoring in order to do so his oath and every distinction between hearsay and competent evidence. The state's attorney is powerless to protest against or prevent these insane antics upon the juror's part, and the court is as equally unable to prevent the denial of justice."

In part 2 of this series I'll explore arguments against Chiperfield's assertions. I'll also let you know why the U.S. Supreme Court says the secrecy involved with grand juries is necessary and I'll analyze what I've personally witnessed while dealing with the Maury County, Tennessee Grand Jury.