Grand juries in the United States

[4] Unlike a petit jury, which resolves a particular civil or criminal case, a grand jury (typically having twelve to twenty-three members) serves as a group for a sustained period of time in all or many of the cases that come up in the jurisdiction, generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state attorney-general, and hears evidence ex parte (i.e. without suspect or person of interest involvement in the proceedings).In the late 18th century, colonial civil, criminal and grand juries played major roles in checking the power of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or their family, or even by laymen.[12][page needed] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.Rule 7 requires that the information (accusation) presented, by a competent public officer on their oath of office, must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, and must give the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated.[14] A grand jury's constitutional role is to prevent prosecutorial misconduct, verifying that the presented information (accusation) is sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution.[22] Michigan has a statutory scheme, enacted in 1917, that quickly became known as the "one-man grand jury" law, allowing a judge to investigate whether probable cause exists to suspect a crime has been committed.[5] They typically only appear in court a few days a month and meet in secret to protect jurors from intimidation or smear campaigns, prevent any innocent people from being subjected to unfounded charges,[6] not to tip-off targets of an investigation who may be a flight risk, reduce the likelihood of witness tampering before a future trial, and encourage witnesses to be more forthcoming.[26] Some criticize the process as being too easy to reach an indictment and that the District Attorney usually directs the investigation[27][25] and that prosecutors are allowed to withhold evidence favorable to the defendant.[5][28][29] Others argue that defendants should be allowed to have a lawyer present, that secrecy reduces the accountability and transparency into the process, including for grand jurors who may want to respond to commentary after submitting their decision.
A grand jury investigating the Arcadia Hotel fire in Boston , Massachusetts in December 1913.
Federal grand jury for the Roy Olmstead trial, Seattle , 1926
A special grand jury, photographed in May 1922
Arcadia Hotel fireBostonMassachusettsUnited Statesfederallegal proceedingscriminal conductEnglandBritish Empirecommon lawLiberiagrand juryindictmentsprobable causepetit juryex parteperson of interestRoy OlmsteadSeattlepreliminary hearingsgeneral power of attorneymalicious prosecutionsprivate prosecutionsplea agreementFederal Rules of Criminal Procedureindictmentorganized crimecorruption18 U.S.C.U.S. District CourtsupermajorityGeorgiaGa. App.Citizens' assemblyThe NationLegal Information InstituteLawfareAmerican Bar AssociationThe Wall Street JournalVirginia Law ReviewUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowPalko v. ConnecticutLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceBenton v. MarylandSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanGriffin v. CaliforniaMiranda v. ArizonaWilliams v. FloridaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinMitchell v. United StatesUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneFlorida v. PowellMaryland v. ShatzerBerghuis v. ThompkinsJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsSalinas v. TexasVega v. Tekoh