Please answer my ignorant question about grand juries

[Syrinx]

Sorry for being so dumb, but I've never been as interested in grand juries as I am right now.

What is necessary to indict?

Does it have to be an unanimous decision? Majority decision? Or what?

Thanks.

[Hissyspit]

1. A Federal Grand Jury?

Local Grand Juries rule differ from state to state.

[Syrinx]

2. yes, federal

One in particular I have in mind.

[Hissyspit]

3. Here's a link from Dept of Justice on Federal Grand Juries:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/ustp_manual/vol5ch11.htm

[Syrinx]

7. thanks for the link

So it seems like a majority from a jury of 23. But this part I don't understand:

The federal grand jury is a body consisting of at least 16 and not more than 23 individuals selected from the jury pool by the district court. Once 23 individuals are qualified as grand jurors, the district judge will select a foreperson and a deputy foreperson from the 23.

It sounds like 23 are required, but 16 are acceptable. :crazy:

[Hissyspit]

4. And the text:

At the conclusion of an investigation, if an indictment is warranted, the United States Attorney will ask the grand jury to return an indictment. This is normally done by presenting the grand jury with a prepared indictment and asking it to vote on it. If at least 12 grand jurors vote in favor on the return of the indictment, it is a "true bill" and it becomes a formal charge once it is signed by the attorney for the government. While the standard for the return of an indictment is probable cause, Department of Justice policy is not to seek an indictment unless there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction after trial. If less than 12 grand jurors concur in the return of an indictment, it is a "no true bill" and, in the absence of new evidence or the rare case of the matter being presented to a new grand jury, the investigation of that defendant will be ended.

[Hissyspit]

5. So the short answer is: 12 grand jurors must vote for indictment...

out of a grand jury of 16-23.

[AmBlue]

9. How many jurors on Fitz' jury?

Do we know?

[Hissyspit]

11. I'm thinking Federal grand juries are kept secret

so we wouldn't know. I could be wrong.

[Liberal In Texas]

6. I believe a majority.

Another link to mix you up.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#two

[Syrinx]

10. thanks but I don't need any help in that department

:D

[KharmaTrain]

8. Different Juries Work Different Ways

No such thing as a dumb question...just dumb people who won't ask questions.

From my experience over the years, they work in "mysterious ways". In theory, they are a "play jury"...one the prosecutor plays the elements of the case out to and then the jury tells him and the judge if there's sufficient evidence to move forward with a criminal indictment.

Just like in a real trial, witnesses are compelled, but the jury's verdict isn't the final determination, the judge's is. I've known of several occasions where a GJ wanted an indictment and the judge overruled...but this is rarely the case.

Lastly, the question goes to the focus of the inquiry. Some are very narrow and thus the jury is needed to determine if the testimony or evidence reaches that level. Or, on the other hand, if they see there's more than the original question, they can encourage the inquiry to expand. As I say, it's mysterious...and a lot has to do with the personalities of the judge and prosecutor involved.

Starr used his Grand Jury like a TV audience. His case wasn't really in that court room and he knew it...it was in the court of public opinion, but the GJ gave him the legal cover to make it seem more legal that political. He couldn't wait to leak the testimony (anyone remember how quick those transcripts showed up compared to Fitzgerald...what a world of difference). In the end, he never asked the jury for indictments...just walked away and let others clean up the mess.

Fitzgerald's not going to do that. Something's happening here. Be patient, I think it's something we can all look forward to.

[Liberal In Texas]

12. Quite right. The Grand Jury hands an indictment up. It's and indictment,

not a verdict.

So, after that a court must hear the evidence. The GJ only decides if there is enough evidence to proceed. It's kind of a filtering system.

If there isn't enough evidence, the prosecutor hasn't made a case, no indictment, or no bill as it's called in Texas.

[Syrinx]

14. I agree with that last sentence

And I appreciate the first one!

[Hissyspit]

19. That would make a good separate post on its own! n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

13. Grand juries have a very low standard for indictment.

A majority vote, I think, definitely not unanimous, on a standard of "probably" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they hear only the prosecutor's case. It is mainly used to gather evidence to build a case, and the failure of a grand jury to indict is usually a real hit on the prosecutor's reputation - headline news - since the standard is so low.

[Syrinx]

15. yeah, Rove is at least a "ham sandwich" I think!

I just had never heard how grand juries actually work, and I'm only now getting interested in finding out. This could spell the end of "our long national nightmare." Or so I hope.

[Liberal In Texas]

17. The thing is, it's the first step. One must take small steps at times. n/

[Liberal In Texas]

16. Yes. If he GJ says "you have a real weak case" it never gets to the

court, the jury or the judge.

They pretty much only decide if the matter is worth hearing. Not who is guilty or culpable.

[Hissyspit]

18. The standard is "probable cause"

From the Dept of Justice link I posted above:

"the standard for the return of an indictment is probable cause, Department of Justice policy is not to seek an indictment unless there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction after trial."

[Liberal In Texas]

21. Exactly. n/t

[Zen Democrat]

20. Rove = Ham Sandwich

[H2O Man]

22. Good one! n/t