Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Grand Juries
Explainer: Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Grand Juries
Jan 30, 2026 5:33 PM

By the end of this month, a grand jury is expected to hand down a decision in the case of the shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. One ofthe most frequently considered questions related to the case is, “What exactly is a grand jury?”

Although seemingly shrouded in mystery, grand juries are an essential part of the protections of our liberties within the legal system of the United States. Here is everything you ever needed to know about the grand jury system.

(Note: Most of this information is based on federal grand juries. Grand juries at the state level may have slightly different policies.)

What is a grand jury?

The grand jury is a jury of citizens that determines whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime mitted and that a specific person or mitted it. If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an “indictment.”

After the issuance of an indictment, the case moves to trial where the accused can then defend themselves against the charges brought against them before a petit jury (also called a trial jury).

Why are grand juries important?

Grand juries provide an independent, citizen-based check on the power of the government. A grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the mendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person.

How do grand juries decide whether to indict?

By an examination of the evidence. Members of a grand jury are even allowed to question witnesses directly. All questions asked of each witness must be relevant and proper, relating only to the case under investigation. Witnesses, of course, may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer a question.

What does a grand jury determine in indictment?

After hearing all the evidence, the members of the grand jury deliberate and take a vote on whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial. At least 16 jurors must be present and 12 members must vote in favor of the indictment.

Can a grand jury indict anyone they choose?

No. The grand jury must be called by a prosecuting attorney who must also sign the indictment before the case can move to trial. This ensures a government check on a grand jury’s power.

What happens if the grand jury doesn’t indict?

If the evidence does not persuade the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe the mitted a crime, the grand jury will vote a “no bill,” or “not a true bill.” When this occurs, not trial is required for the accused person.

Who presides over the grand jury?

The prosecuting attorney. No judge or defense attorney is present. The accused also has no right to present their case. In some instances, they may not be informed that an accusation is even being made about them to a grand jury.

How many prise a grand jury?

There are 23 members of a federal grand jury. Sixteen of the 23 members of the grand jury constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If fewer than this number is present, even for a moment, the proceedings of the grand jury must stop.

How long do grand jurors serve?

In the federal system, regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but a court can extend this term for another 6 months, bringing the total possible term to 24 months. Special federal grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months but a court can extend their term for up to another 18 months, bringing their total possible term to 36 months. The term of state grand juries varies widely, but usually last a year.

Do grand juries meet every day?

No, they usually meet once or twice a week.

Is a grand jury required in all cases?

No. An accused person may waive grand jury proceedings and agree to be prosecuted by a written charge of crime called an “information.”

Must grand jury members explain their decision?

Secrecy is an important element in grand jury proceedings. No inquiry may be made to learn what grand jurors said or how they voted, except upon order of the court.

What is “grand jurors’ immunity”?

Immunity is granted to all grand jurors for their authorized actions while serving on a federal grand jury and means that no grand juror may be penalized for actions taken within the scope of his or her service as a grand juror.

Who is chosen for such duty?

Grand juries are chosen much the same way as trial juries: from registered voters or lists of actual voters, or other sources when necessary, under procedures designed to ensure that all groups in munity will have a fair chance to serve.

Federal law requires that a grand jury be selected at random from a fair cross section of munity in the district or division in which the federal grand jury convenes.

How did grand juries get started?

The tradition of using a grand jury goes back to the Magna Carta, the first English constitutional document, which King John granted in 1215 at the demand of his subjects.

The first English grand jury consisted of twelve men selected from the knights or other freemen, who were summoned to inquire into crimes alleged to have mitted in their munity. Grand jurors originally functioned as accusers or witnesses, rather than as judges.

When the English colonists came to America, they brought with them many of the institutions of the English legal system, including the grand jury. This tradition was so important that it was later added to the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . . ”

While all states in the U.S. currently have provisions for grand juries for state-level crimes, only half of the states actually employ them (those states that don’t use grand juries instead use a preliminary hearing before a trial court judge).

Is it true that a prosecutor could, as the old saying goes, “indict a ham sandwich”?

Unclear. There is no record of a federal grand jury ever having indicted an actual ham sandwich.

That famous phrase originated with Sol Wachtler, the former New York State chief judge. In a lunch interview in 1930 with the New York Daily News, Wachtler famously observed that prosecutors have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to “indict a ham sandwich.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
‘I was in prison’
In the great discourse regarding the separation of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus refers to the kinds of actions, done in obediential faith that works through love, that demonstrates those who truly love him and those who do not. I have heard a dozen different ways of explaining, or explaining away, these verses over the course of my lifetime. Many consign them to Israel and how we treat the Jews. Others say they must be...
Health care reform…in the wrong places
With all this talk of health care reform this year, I couldn’t help but do some digging into the real aspects of the proposals. Ranging from pletely disruptive universal medical care plan from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the socialist-like plan from Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the 110th congress, health care is big on the agenda for 2007. I am afraid that if the policies proposed by Schwarzenegger and Kennedy are passed, future generations will witness a detrimental effect...
Take a guilt trip with FREE RIDE!
Every now and again, I stumble across an article that just gets me going. Today was one such day, and this was one such article. Robert Samuelson takes aim at the baby boomers and their entitlement mentality in the Washington Post: As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation’s leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob...
It must start with the church
The question of cultural transformation looms over American Christianity. Should we engage culture? If so, how? In a battle for supremacy over American institutions? Or for the hearts and minds of the people? Reading through a sermon from Augustine, I was struck by a passage that illustrates how transformation of the world begins (and sometimes ends) in the church: …pray as much as you can. Evils abound, and God has willed that evils abound. If only evil people didn’t abound,...
More dispatches from the fall of Western culture
There’s nothing like a few dreary Michigan winter days to get me into a midwinter funk. And because I’m a nice guy, I thought I’d share some of my funkyness with you, gentle reader. Especially if you’re in a warmer climate. First of all, David Warren notes that the foundations of society in Canada are still under assault: The names of the plaintiffs in that case were suppressed by the court. I would be very curious to know who they...
MLK and Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice Blog: “If Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. was alive today he would be an environmental justice activist.” Perhaps. MLK went to Memphis in 1968 on a mission for black garbage workers demanding equal pay and better work conditions. He was killed before he got there. 15 years later, black activists would stop a hazardous waste landfill in Warren County, North Carolina, often pointed to as the beginning of the environmental justice movement. Are the two related? Sure....
Today is MLK Day
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service, and rightly so. Here’s a bit from his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a...
Wealth, moral development, and Paris Hilton
In his latest TCS Daily essay, Arnold Kling writes, “As we get wealthier, we also e enhanced physically, cognitively, and morally, leading to a virtuous cycle of improvements to the standard of living.” Does affluence leads to moral progress? I don’t think there’s any necessary connection, and there’s plenty of counter-evidence, not least of which are the moral atrocities of the 20th century. But what about more mundane examples? In today’s WSJ, Kay S. Horowitz writes about the exploits of...
Should Muslims have…
…faith-based health services? Change is unlikely to occur without adequate … representation of munities in positions of influence – be they government bodies, research charities, or NHS trusts” Professor Sheikh says. He concludes that the long-term goal must be “to mainstream the understanding of the importance of religious identity.” But Professor Aneez Esmail from Manchester University argues that whilst it is “reasonable [that] we try to plan and configure our services to take account of needs that may have their...
ABC’s Nannies & Mommies
One of ABC’s new dramas, Brothers & Sisters, features Calista Flockhart as a hard-hitting conservative pundit named Kitty Walker. Despite its title, the show is not all that family friendly (although it has not yet been rated by the Parents Television Council). But for this post, I won’t be focusing on the questionable social and sexual mores of the show. Instead, I’m going to focus on an aspect of the show’s portrayal of politics. “Politics is about the privilege and...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved