I’ve been selected to serve on a federal grand jury. It meets every other Wednesday for an entire year. I thought it would make for some interesting blogging, until we got to the part about swearing to keep the proceedings secret. Federal prosecutors bring cases to the 23 of us, and we decide whether to issue indictments. Basically, they can’t prosecute any serious crime without our saying so (and most federal crimes count as serious). The impression I get is that they will be mostly drug distribution cases (and related), immigration cases, and the occasional white-collar crime. Unfortunately, as I say, I won’t be able to tell you whether this impression turns out to be right. Right now it seems like it will be interesting - especially since we have so much power, including the ability to question witnesses ourselves - but I have the feeling come next summer, I’m going to be counting down the scheduled meetings.
Ugh. I was on a regular (petit) jury once. One of the most stressful experiences of my life. Criminal case. Obviously guilty defendants. (Prosecution: “Armed Carjacking. Bruised victim. Loaded weapon found in car.” Defense: “No, he lent us the car. We were about to bring it back.”) But the relatively easy decision to convict did not make it any easier to actually decide on someone else’s fate. It gave me horrible case of acne for the first time since puberty.
AUSAs believe, as a rule, that they can get grand juries to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. They are almost always right. You should keep an open mind — and most of the cases they bring before you may be sufficient to indict — but you can do your country a service by maintaining a deep, deep skepticism.
Amen to that! The cliche is that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The reason is the standard of persuasion is so much lower for indictment as opposed to conviction. All one has to do to obtain an indictment is establish a prima facie case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction. So be prepared to see only the outlines of the case.
Remember, if you are opposed to drug laws, you don’t have to indict people on drug charges.
Being on a Grand Jury is an important duty to which only some citizens are called. Take it seriously and do a good job. Don’t listen to what people on the Internet try to tell you to do. Just focus on the job and carry it out to the best of your abilities while being true to your responsibilities. The greatest reward you could ask for is to know you did well.
Good luck.
“Don’t listen to what people on the Internet try to tell you to do”
What, people like you?
Anyway. the grand jury system is completely and totally screwed up. The prosecutor has complete control over what info you see, so you should definitely remember to be very sceptical.
Oh, and like the “anon” says, you don’t have to indict anyone on any laws you dont agree with, including drug laws, no matter what the law says, how incontrevertable (sp?) the evidence, nor what the prosecutor tells you. It’s jury nullification, one of our more unknown checks and balances, but still there.
check this out for more on grand juries:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-476es.html
Have fun (if that can be said about jury duty) and try hard.
Somebody said the grand jury is a forgotten 5th branch of government.
Be that as it may, the grand jury need not limit itself to the ham sandwiches brought by the prosecutors (as you say, most drug cases.)It has the authority to investigate government officials, compel testimony, bring charges against the highest. See grisham’s runaway jury for the potential.
An occasional grand jury run amok. actually doing its constitutional duty, would put a big scare into the drug warriors (and other examples of overreaching federal authority.) Go get em and if you need smoking guns email me.
Jury nullification is, of course, a power of juries, not a right.
I hope you find your jury service interesting.
Classics
The Virtual Tophet
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (theology)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Amity Wilczek (biology)
Theodore Wong
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Irascible Professor
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review