Prosecutors can lay out any narrative they want in front of a grand jury, as long as they use evidence that would be admissible in trial court. They almost always end with an indictment. Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge for the New York Court of Appeals once said that a grand jury would even "indict a ham sandwich," it was so easy for prosecutors to get charges.
FiveThirtyEight has reported that grand juries at any level almost always indict. Distaste for grand juries in the Twin Cities has a history dating back at least to , when a Minneapolis police officer shot and killed year-old Tycel Nelson, who was black. An all-white grand jury didn't charge the officer.
After that, Hennepin County convened a task force that found racial minorities were overrepresented as suspects, but underrepresented as grand jurors. Despite the prevalence of indictments in most cases brought to a grand jury, police officers are rarely subject to grand jury indictments. One reason: The legal bar for charging officers in a person's death is much higher than it is for civilians.
Minnesota law says use of deadly force by police is justified "to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm. The low rate of indictment for officers also partly comes from the relationship between prosecutors and police departments: Sometimes prosecutors treat police departments like they're their own clients, Murray said. In most cases, it's officers who do the investigative work for prosecutors. When a potential criminal case arises, it's usually the police department — local, regional, county, etc.
Investigators then hand over their findings to prosecutors, who decide whether or not to press charges. So, turning around and charging an officer can be a tough spot for prosecutors. The use of grand juries in cases of police violence have become so contentious that some places are taking other routes. California banned the use of grand juries in cases of excessive or deadly force by law enforcement in Backers of the legislation said outlawing grand juries in those instances would make the judicial system more transparent and accountable.
In March , Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman made a similar decision when considering charges against the police officers in the November shooting death of Jamar Clark. Ending a decades-old practice, Freeman said the county would stop handing off police-involved shooting cases to grand juries. In the Clark case, he declined to pursue charges. You make MPR News possible. Individual donations are behind the clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives.
Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together. Donate today. Protesters display a banner and placards during a demonstration outside a Staten Island courthouse in January , before a hearing in a state lawsuit seeking the release of grand jury proceedings concerning the death of Eric Garner. Share Twitter Facebook Email. The evidence presented to a grand jury is not limited by rules of evidence, so hearsay and other normally inadmissible evidence is commonly allowed.
As a result, many grand juries have broad power to see and hear wide range of evidence. In many jurisdictions excluding California , the prosecutor is not legally required to present exculpatory evidence i.
In California, the grand jury may require the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence when it has reason to believe that such evidence exists. However, the grand jury is not required to hear any evidence for the defendant and since grand jury proceedings are held in secret with no notice to a defendant, this has little practical value.
After the prosecution has presented the selected evidence, the grand jury votes to determine whether sufficient evidence has been presented for each of the proposed charges. While the number of votes required varies by jurisdiction, only a majority or supermajority — not a unanimous vote — is required. If the requisite number of grand jurors agrees that the evidence establishes probable cause, they vote to "return" the indictment.
Upon the vote to return an indictment, the criminal case is initiated against the accused. But even if the grand jury does not vote in favor of an indictment, there still remains the possibility of criminal prosecution.
In jurisdictions that do not require indictments for felonies, the prosecutor can still pursue charges through a preliminary hearing with a judge, and in all jurisdictions, the prosecutor can pursue misdemeanor charges through a preliminary hearing.
The procedure for a preliminary hearing stands in stark contrast. Preliminary hearings, like criminal trials, are held in open court and are presided over by a judge.
The accused is present with counsel, and witnesses are subject to limited cross-examination. As with grand jury hearings, the rules of evidence are loosened, and the courts typically allow evidence that may otherwise be inadmissible at trial. After hearing the prosecution's evidence, a judge, who is more familiar with the law than a grand jury, determines whether or not a defendant should stand trial for the charges alleged by the prosecution.
There are reasons in which it is an appropriate or desirable alternative to a preliminary hearing. The California Grand Jury Association cites multiple surveys that have been taken of California district attorneys, who listed the following factors as influential in the decision to seek a grand jury indictment rather than using the preliminary hearing:. For anyone familiar with California law in general, it should come as no surprise that California's grand jury system is a bit different than that in most other states.
The grand jury system is required by the California State Constitution, which mandates that each county empanel a grand jury on an annual basis that is to be comprised of 11, 19, or 23 people, depending on the size of the county. However, unlike many other grand jury systems, most of the work performed by grand juries in California is not related to criminal indictments, but to serving a civil function as a "watchdog" over local governmental. California civil grand juries investigate governmental inefficiency, unfairness, wrongdoing, and any perceived violations of public laws and regulations within the county.
Grand juries are authorized to examine all aspects of county and city government, and special districts to ensure that the government is serving the best interests of the county's citizens, with a focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The grand jury reviews and responds to complaints brought by citizens with various allegations against public officials, including misconduct, mistreatment, or general inefficiencies.
The grand jury then investigates these claims by meeting with city and county officials, visiting facilities, and conducting independent research. At the end of the one-year term, each grand jury must submit a report on its investigations, findings, and conclusions, including recommendations for improvements in procedures and processes. California grand juries are also empowered to bring accusations against public officials for willful corrupt misconduct in office that can lead to trial and removal from public office.
While California grand juries are authorized to hear criminal indictment matters, they are only infrequently asked to do so. Indeed, the primary focus of California grand juries is the "watchdog" role, and the vast majority of criminal cases in California are brought through preliminary hearings. As of , all but 15 counties in the state had limited their grand juries' roles to investigating local government.
For more information on grand juries, check out Grand Juries on Nolo. Unlike a preliminary hearing held in court with the defense side present, the grand jury doesn't make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, it's a one-sided affair. Grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them.
While prosecutors technically have an obligation to present "exculpatory" evidence —evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty—there's not much other than the prosecutor's conscience to enforce this rule. During a preliminary hearing, the defendant can also see and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which gives them a good preview of the prosecution's case.
This situation doesn't present itself in the context of a grand jury. In part because there's no one on the "other side" to contest the prosecutor's evidence, grand juries almost always return an indictment as requested by the prosecutor. According to a U. It's also suggested that grand juries rubber stamp prosecutors' charges because grand jurors are not adept at evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.
Prosecutors often prefer grand juries because the proceedings are secret, whereas preliminary hearings are open to the public. The rule on secrecy is meant to provide several benefits.
For the accused, it protects their reputation should no charges issue. For witnesses, it's meant to allow them to testify more freely and truthfully. And for the prosecution, it provides control of information.
But critics of secrecy rules say it runs counter to the fairness and transparency of the justice system. Finally, in highly publicized or controversial charging decisions, prosecutors may opt for a grand jury to provide a political buffer. But sometimes this decision backfires. While prosecution offices previously went before grand juries in many police shooting cases, public outcry at the lack of transparency and accountability has resulted in a change of tactics for some prosecution offices.
The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.
0コメント