Grand Juries: Development, Present Use, Strengths, and Weaknesses

Grand juries trace their lineage to 1166, when Henry II, the King of England, employed a body of locals as his investigative arm. The initial grand juries did not hear evidence per se, but rather were the sources of evidence, reporting what they had heard and seenùin other words, gossip (Frankel and Naftalis, pp. 6-7).

For more than five centuries, the grand jury remained an arm of the king. That began to change in 1681, after Charles II had restored the monarchy in England. Charles also attempted to restore Catholicism as the nation's religion, which brought a firestorm of protest from the Earl of Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge. The King tried to use the grand jury as a public forum for his prosecution of the two men, but the grand jurors refused. They preferred to hear testimony in private, free from the pressures the King could exert in an open forum. This marked the first assertion of independence by a grand jury. After that, the panels often became the protector of the individual against the tyranny of the crown (Franke

. . .
ments against abolitionist leaders (Frankel and Naftalis, pp. 13-14). In the late 19th century and early 20th century, grand juries established their reputation as guardians of the community. The panels would investigate corruption on their initiative, without prompting from a prosecutor. Some grand juries abused their power, prompting many states to abolished the panels entirely (Law Street Journal, 1998). Today, a federal jury consists of 16 to 23 members and state grand juries range from 5 to 23 panelists. Grand jurors serve terms ranging from 10 days to two years. Most grand juries meet at the direction of prosecutors, and almost all of the jurors are laypeople with no legal training. Thus, they are dependent on prosecutors for interpretation of the law, especially when the case involves complex federal statutes (Brenner, pp. 80-86). The power of grand juries can be seen in two practices that are anathema to traditional legal practice in America. First, the federal rules and some states do not require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence. Second, secrecy is paramount, especially at the federal level. Participants are barred from revealing any information about grand jury proceedings (Brenner, pp. 86-103). The
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Street Journal, Frankel Naftalis, Ken Starr, , Fifth Amendment, grand juries, Colledge King, Nixon Administration, King England, grand jury, Peter Zenger, Hill Wang, frankel naftalis, brenner pp, naftalis pp, century grand juries, frankel naftalis pp, century grand, special grand juries, hear testimony, law street, law street journal, grand jurors, street journal, grand juries serve,
Approximate Word count = 1254
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)