YOU DECIDE - Do we need to take back this power?

Although the laws may vary from state to state, Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them,

“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.”

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power. The Grand Jury is not a tool for government to use against its citizens.

There are not going to be any lynch parties for politicians. As much as we might mention ‘torches and pitchforks,’ the only revolution I support and the only revolutions supported by the leadership of the Grand Jury movement is a revolution as defined by the U. S. Constitution. Our forefathers had the wisdom to provide a way for citizens to redress their grievances in a peaceful way.

The Grand Jury comes to America from the common law of England in its Great Charter (Magna Charta)  but in America there are numerous alterations due to the different nature of the American society.  In England, there is a king and the people are subjects while in America, the people are the sovereigns.  Apply that fact to anything you read in the Magna Charta and you will see the changes that occur as it comes to America.  The following is Article 61 of the Magna Charta that deals with common law Grand Juries (or sureties of the peace). wdd

+61. Inasmuch as for the sake of God, and for the bettering of our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our barons, we have made all these aforesaid concessions,--wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm stability, we make and grant to them the following security: that the barons, namely, may elect at their pleasure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons, with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power,--namely, by taking our castles, lands and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until amends shall have been made according to their judgment. Saving the persons of ourselves, our queen and our children. And when amends shall have been made they shall be in accord with us as they had been previously. And whoever of the land wishes to do so, shall swear that in carrying out all the aforesaid measures he will obey the mandates of the aforesaid twenty five barons, and that, with them, he will oppress us to the extent of his power. And, to any one who wishes to do so, we publicly and freely give permission to swear; and we will never prevent any one from swearing. Moreover, all those in the land who shall be unwilling, themselves and of their own accord, to swear to the twenty five barons as to distraining and oppressing us with them: such ones we shall make to swear by our mandate, as has been said. And if any one of the twenty five barons shall die, or leave the country, or in any other way be prevented from carrying out the aforesaid measures,--the remainder of the aforesaid twenty five barons shall choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Moreover, in all things entrusted to those twenty five barons to be carried out, if those twenty five shall be present and chance to disagree among themselves with regard to some matter, or if some of them, having been summoned, shall be unwilling or unable to be present: that which the majority of those present shall decide or decree shall be considered binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had consented to it. And the aforesaid twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the foregoing, and will cause them to be observed to the extent of their power. And we shall obtain nothing from any one, either through ourselves or through another, by which any of those concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, it shall be vain and invalid, and we shall never make use of it either through ourselves or through another.

end

A Staff Report from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

Who invented the grand jury?

Dear Cecil,

With the flap in San Francisco over the grand jury indictments of the police chief and a lot of his top staff, I'm wondering about the origins and history of grand juries. Is this a U.S. invention? Who originally thought this would be a good idea and how did they get it past the politicians?

— Patrick Temple

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956), Justice Black answered your question: "The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders." According to the opinion, the purpose of the English grand jury was "to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes." Grand jurors were summoned from the body of the people and weren't hampered by strict rules of procedure or evidence. Grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to indict on such information as they saw fit. Those are the basics. But who first came up with the idea?

It all started with the Assize of Clarendon. As Mark Kadish writes in a 1996 law review article on grand juries:

In twelfth-century England, criminal charges were prosecuted essentially by individuals, with the king acting as "a super-privileged individual." The king was thus personally involved in the medieval criminal justice system. With the promulgation of the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, King Henry II established a system of local informers (twelve men from every hundred or four men from every village) to tell him who was suspected of "murder, robbery, larceny, or harbouring criminals." The king's system, which superseded baronial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, made the king the beneficiary of the fines and forfeitures that attended the accusations.

So Justice Black wasn't describing the original purpose of the grand jury, but rather the grand jury as it evolved over time.

The twelve-person body became a twenty-four-person grand jury during the reign of Edward III (1312-1377). Kadish says:

the twelve men were superseded by twenty-four knights chosen by the county sheriff, who had authority for beginning a prosecution. The knights were called 'le grande inquest.'" The 12-member jury no longer had accusatorial jurisdiction, but it became the "petit jury," which was responsible for rendering verdict of guilty or innocent in capital cases.

Eventually the grand jury took on a protective function. Frederick Hafetz and John Pellettieri (1999) describe a watershed case in that respect:

In 1681 . . . Charles II sought to indict for treason Anthony Ashley Cooper, the First Earl of Shaftesbury, and Stephen Colledge, one of his followers. At this point in English history, Charles II had the twin prime objectives of strengthening his absolute rule over England and bringing England back within the realm of the Catholic Church. Shaftesbury and Colledge were vehement opponents. As the strength of the opposition grew, Charles II attempted to quell it through the institution of grand jury proceedings. At his insistence, strong pressure was put on grand juries convened in London to indict the two for treason. When a grand jury refused to indict Colledge, the foreman was arrested and sent to the Tower of London. Prosecutors then reconvened a grand jury in Oxford. There, the populace was more amenable to the royalist cause. Jurors indicted Colledge, whereupon he was subjected to a trial, found guilty and later executed.

After Shaftesbury and Colledge, people saw the grand jury as a shield against unfair prosecution. What had begun as an accusatorial body also took on investigative functions. These new roles followed grand juries to the American colonies. According to Kadish:

unlike its English progenitor, the American grand jury originally began, not as an arm of the executive, but as a defense against monarchy. It established a screen between accusations and convictions and initiated prosecutions of corrupt agents of the government. Therefore, the English progenitor upon which the American grand jury was modeled was the more enlightened protective grand jury of the 1600s.

It took a while before grand juries made it across the Atlantic. Initially the colonies used "Assistants." Assistants, acting as magistrates, were authorized by the English monarchy to make laws, accuse suspects, and sit in judgment of criminals. The colonists had no control over the Assistants, and the Assistants took full advantage--when grand juries were implemented in America in 1635, Kadish reports, some Assistants were among the first indicted. From the start American grand juries assumed an oversight function. They called attention to the deficiencies of local government and other municipal concerns. Charleston grand juries, for example, complained that "selling liquor to sailors and Negroes produced riots," according to Richard Younger in The People's Panel: The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634-1941. Younger says juries complained about "the failures of constables and magistrates to enforce the Sabbath observance laws, disorderly behavior of the town watch, and neglect of officials to regulate the town markets properly." They also suggested civic reforms like more watchmen, better lighting, and even establishment of a fire company.

Beginning in the mid-1800s, Younger notes, many states began to abolish or curtail grand juries on the grounds that increased safeguards of defendants' rights at other stages of the judicial process had rendered them superfluous.  The crusade against grand juries had begun in England at the urging of reformer Jeremy Bentham around 1821. The American movement "assumed almost epidemic proportions" after the Civil War but never succeeded in doing away with grand juries altogether. The English movement was slower but surer--the English grand jury was whittled away and finally abolished in 1933, although no grand juries were seated after 1917. A similar movement began in Canada in 1860, although Canadian grand juries didn't become extinct until Nova Scotia became the last province to abolish them in 1984.

Today, grand juries are unknown outside the U.S. and are far from universal here. Federal grand juries are enshrined in the Constitution, but in 1972 the Supreme Court declared in Alexander v. Louisiana that the federal requirement didn't apply to the states. States that have abolished grand juries typically require that criminal prosecutions begin with a preliminary hearing at which a judge decides whether there is sufficient cause to proceed. Interestingly, two states that no longer use grand juries to indict, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, retain them for investigations. Since the grand jury has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and require testimony under oath, it remains a powerful investigative tool.

Grand jury practices vary widely among states that still use them. In some states, the investigating grand jury is limited in scope to matters brought to its attention by a prosecutor. In others, the grand jury can investigate any crime within its jurisdiction, typically the county in which the grand jury was empanelled. Most states also provide for a "state grand jury" or "special grand jury" with the power to investigate statewide criminal activity. Some state grand juries are responsible for non-criminal matters. Georgia grand juries hear requests for revisions in county boundaries, report on conditions at local jails, and evaluate the conduct of the medical examiner's office. Grand juries in Florida and Texas monitor elections. Alaska grand juries are charged with inquiring into any matter that concerns public welfare or safety.

Grand jury procedure in criminal cases is different from what you might expect. The target of a grand jury investigation who chooses to testify isn't entitled to a lawyer during questioning. The grand jury's decision doesn't have to be unanimous--either a simple majority or some supermajority is sufficient. A grand jury need only find "probable cause" to return an indictment, not the more rigorous "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard we're used to at criminal trials.

Because grand juries are generally composed of ordinary citizens with no special training or experience in the law, they usually follow the lead of the prosecutor assigned to them. The classic complaint of defendants' attorneys is that grand jurors would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asked them to. But they don't always do as the prosecutor wishes, as Jeannene Pacific, the district attorney in Jones County, Mississippi, discovered.  Ms. Pacific became the target of her own grand jury when it sought to investigate over $35,000 paid by the county's Worthless Check Unit to Pacific and her staff as "salary supplements." Alarmed, Pacific asked the local court to forbid the grand jury's actions. Although the local court did so, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the grand jury had the power to investigate:

The grand jury must be free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench on the legitimate rights of any witness called before it. The court generally cannot limit the grand jury, its legitimate investigation, interfere with its investigatory function, control the nature of its investigation, prohibit consideration of offenses within any particular class of crimes, stay its proceedings, dismiss a matter, or do various other things.

Ms. Pacific and her assistant eventually repaid over $30,000.

In the federal system, the grand jury remains an absolute requirement; all prosecutions for felonies (crimes punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary) must be initiated by grand jury indictment unless the accused waives that right. Federal grand juries don't have independent investigatory powers; they're limited to matters brought before them by prosecutors. Rule 6(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) sets the size of a federal grand jury at no less than sixteen nor more than twenty-three people. Rule 6(e) imposes secrecy on grand jurors. That serves several functions--it protects the reputation of anyone who is investigated but not ultimately indicted; it encourages reluctant witnesses because their words won't reach the targets of the investigation; it protects witnesses and evidence from tampering or undue influence; and it reduces the possibility that the targets of the investigation will flee before indictment.

Even though today's grand juries may lack the independence that once briefly protected Stephen Colledge from Charles II's royal wrath, they still arguably serve as a useful speed-bump on the road to criminal conviction, forcing prosecutors to disclose their evidence well before the defense must make any showing. San Francisco police chief Earl Sanders no doubt appreciates such advantages--six months after he was indicted, the charges were dropped and he was declared "factually innocent," a finding that permitted him to have his fingerprints, mug shot and booking sheet from the arrest destroyed.

EARLY AMERICAN GRAND JURY

You have read how grand juries have and do operate in America, where they came from, and who is authorized to invoke its authority from a number of perspectives.  The reason this County Grand Jury Pool is being created is because members here think there is a better way to operate a grand jury then to allow one of the three branches of Government to capture and use them only for their own purposes.  while it is true government purpose may well be appropriate in some ways, in others it is clearly not.  This effort hopes to change that and to give back to people who are injured a place to demonstrate that injury to non government people who will support their right to a remedy or not by their decision.  It is hoped also that with the ascent of this kind of Grand Jury government will take more care with the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property of individual people than they now do.  In that interest here are some suggestions for this grand jury community;

1. That there be no current holder of any government office of trust being members of this pool or empanelled upon any grand jury investigation.  (That would include "Bar" licensed attorneys). 

2.  That each panel be composed of 25 upstanding members of the county in which the controversy exists, or in the event there are not enough members signed up and available to make up the 25 from the adjoining counties as well.

3.  That matters addressed by each county pool be limited to controversies emanating from that county except that state wide controversies be indicted by 1/5 (at this point an arbitrary number) of the county grand jury pools of the state or ten total county panels within the state, whichever is less.

4.  That every panel have 4 co-Forman chosen by each panel who will help with the ministerial matters of the  panel and who will hand deliver the presentment or indictment to the appropriate government office or in the event the government office refuses to carry the will of the panel forward, to the complainant with a certification of "special attorney general" empowering him/her to prosecute the matter in a court of record proceeding according to the course of the common law.

5.  That the panel be filled by members volunteering on a case by case basis relieving the need to empanel the same members over and over again for long periods of time

6.  That in controversies where government is a party, the prosecutor shall be invited to present evidence of the governments position respecting the controversy however will have no further influence of authority to mandate or prohibit any action of the grand jurors.

7.  That is will be the responsibility of the party bringing the controversy to the County Grand Jury to present and distribute all evidence to the Jury members and make the case for indictment or presentment in the face of evidence to the contrary presented by any other party.

8.  It is suggested that all efforts in each case to proceed to a completion of duty be done with as little paperwork as possible therefore use of the benefits of the 21st century information systems are preferable.

9.  There should be a way for people who benefit from the efforts of the county pools to pay it backwards.  Any suggestions?

The foregoing are some general principles that will be suggested by this pool to the counties.  In addition, in the weeks to come we will link standard forms for many of the functions of the panels that will help the organizational efforts for all.

In this video G Edward Griffin tells you what the source of the problem is.

Watch all 7 parts just click youtube

IN CASE YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT HERE YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT IN AMERICA SOCIALISM IS ALWAYS AN ASSAULT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THEREFORE IS A CRIME AND ANYONE THAT PROMOTES IT OR ACQUIESCES TO IT IS A CRIMINAL.  ARE YOU SUCH A CRIMINAL?

I REFER TO SUCH PEOPLE AS "NEIGHBORS FROM HELL"  THE DO-GOODERS THAT USE FORCE TO INSTITUTE THEIR OWN BRAND OF GOOD ON THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM

In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, so that for a size of 23 a bare majority would be 12. Any citizen could bring a matter before it directly, from a public work that needed repair, to a delinquent official, to a complaint of a crime, and they could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen, who could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury, and if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, then by returning the indictment to the complainant, it appointed him to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended.

LIBERTARIAN VIEWPOINT

Libertarian and president of the Constitution Society Jon Roland has argued that most grand juries as they are set up and used today are unconstitutional, and that there should be a return to grand jury practices closer to those that prevailed during the founding era. This would mean grand juries of 23 unpaid citizens each serving no more than 3,000 people, open to having anyone bring any matter before them, with no preferential treatment of public prosecutors, and deciding every question by a vote of at least 12.^[12] Professor Kevin K. Washburn has made a somewhat similar claim, arguing that grand juries that drawn from actual communities would better fulfill the promise of representing "the community" in criminal justice and serve as more weighty and cohesive counterparts to expert prosecutors.^[13]

Cato Institute writers argued that grand juries as conducted today are unjust as the defendant is not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to call witnesses. Intended to serve as a check on prosecutors, the opportunity it presents them to compel testimony can in fact prove useful in building up the case they will present at the final trial.^[14]

Many jurisdictions in the United States have replaced the formality of a grand jury with a procedure in which the prosecutor can issue charges by filing an information (also known as an accusation), which is followed by a preliminary hearing before a judge at which both the defendant and his or her counsel are present. New York has amended procedures governing the formation of grand juries so that grand jurors are no longer required to have previous jury experience.

Contrary to what some might expect, in some jurisdictions grand jurors are selected to serve by the local prosecutor, rather than by random selection from the community. Many who serve have done so many times and have a proven "record" to indict. No state has a provision to limit the number of grand juries a prosecutor can form to finally get the indictment he wants. If the first one doesn't indict he can form another. Sol Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of New York State, jokingly observed that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."^[15]This issue was identified nationally when a Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, organized three grand juries before he could get an indictment on Congressman Tom Delay. The issue is mitigated by the fact that each subsequent grand jury may be called to view additional evidence, and not to merely revisit evidence that was already presented; but in the Earle/DeLay case, the third grand jury handed down its indictment less than a week after the second grand jury handed down a "no bill" decision.

In his two page Op/Ed in the Houston Chronicle, Joseph Gutheinz, a Texas attorney, former Harris County grand jury member and a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association went against members of his own party by condemning the way grand juries are selected in Harris County, Texas. He said that "Harris County grand juries are too white and too conservative." Gutheinz called the "Harris County grand jury...a throwback to our segregated past." Gutheinz said that the problem with the Harris County grand jury is that it is largely drawn from a pool of volunteers, and that Commissioners picked by the Republican judges get to pick what individuals ultimately get to serve on grand juries, and then the judges pick the grand jury foremen from that list.

The Constitutionality of contemporary grand jury practices has been brought before the Supreme Court six times in history; however, the court has yet to allow a case to be heard.

In all U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, a potential defendant has the right under the Fifth Amendment not to give self-incriminating testimony. However, the prosecutor can call a potential defendant to testify, which may require that person to then assert his or her Fifth Amendment right. In New York and some other states, a witness testifying about crimes he has committed is immune to prosecution for those crimes, unless he previously waives immunity.

County grand juries in California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada

In the U.S., the states of California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon have
grand juries at the county level.

In California, each county is required by the state constitution to have at least one grand jury impaneled at all times. Grand Juries are governed by Title 4 of the California Penal Code, as well as other more general provisions. Grand juries are not subject to the Brown Act.

Most grand juries are seated on a fiscal cycle, i.e. July through June. Most counties have panels consisting of 19 jurors, some have as few as 11 jurors, others have as many as 23 (see California Penal Code Section 888.2). All actions by a grand jury require a two-thirds vote. Jurors are usually selected on a volunteer basis.

These county-level grand juries primarily focus on oversight of government institutions at the county level and lower. Almost any entity that receives public money can be examined by the grand jury, including county government, cities, and special districts. Each panel selects the topics that it wishes to examine each year. A jury is not allowed to continue an oversight from a previous panel. If a jury wishes to look at a subject that a prior jury was examining, it must start its own investigation and independently verify all information. It may use information obtained from the prior jury but this information must be verified before it can be used by the current jury. Upon completing its investigation, the jury may, but is not required to, issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations.

The grand jury is required to publish a minimum of one report containing a minimum of one finding and one recommendation. The published reports are the only public record of the grand jury's work; there is no minority report. Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required or requested to respond. The format of these responses is dictated by California Penal Code Section 933.05, as is the time span in which they must respond.

County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the grand jury's work.

Most county grand juries in California do not consider criminal matters, though by law they are able to. The decision of whether or not to present criminal cases to the grand jury is made by the county District Attorney.

The law governing county grand juries may differ in Nevada.

Hennepin County, Minnesota (which contains Minneapolis) keeps a Grand Jury impaneled at all times. Each Grand Jury serves a term of four months. The Grand Jury typically meets one day each week. It focuses almost exclusively on homicide cases.

 




I am convinced this is a good idea, I want to JOIN.........

Every County in the States Should Participate