Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Grand Juries
Explainer: Everything You Ever Needed to Know About Grand Juries
Dec 28, 2025 1:27 AM

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
The right attitude about tithing during COVID-19
COVID-19 has caused thousands to lose their jobs and other regular sources of e. As a result, many have had to cut any extra or unnecessary spending to make ends meet. Some of these “extra costs” included donating money to their local church, house of worship, or favorite charity. Whereas many businesses could generate e by moving online during the pandemic, most churches do not have the luxury of pletely “virtual.” In terms of donations, the faithful could certainly wire...
Everything you need to know about Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett’s record of judicial rulings and legal writings shows that she holds an originalist view of the Constitution, and it provides a glimpse into her opinions on such diverse issues as religious liberty, national healthcare, environmental regulations, the right to life, and the Second Amendment. Here are the facts about the woman who could replace replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Biography Amy Coney Barrett was born to Michael and Linda Coney on January 28,...
Acton Line podcast: Supreme Disorder and SCOTUS politics with Ilya Shapiro
The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February of 2016 amplified questions about the Supreme Court in the 2016 election to new highs. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s high wire act in denying a hearing and vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill that seat, Judge Merrick Garland, ultimately paid off for him: President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. A year later, the political world was...
Bishop: ‘Undue burdens’ not required to fight COVID-19
Much of our national debate around the COVID-19 pandemic and the appropriate government response to it has been framed as opposition between those who say they follow “science” and those who do not. This framing is one which is used to devalue and dismiss critics of ever-shifting state responses to the pandemic, as well as to insulate politicians from any sort of accountability for their own prudential judgements. In this context Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, has written a...
Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes: freedom and equality
“Equality” is a term that people uss a lot of nowadays – too much, some would argue. This week in Forbes, the Acton Institute’s managing director, international Alejandro Chafuen writes about equality and its relationship to freedom. Not all agree on which factors of equality are most important – equality of opportunity, e equality, equality before the law, and so on – but however we define it, freedom and equality cannot be separated. Dr. Chafuen’s analysis incorporates much from a...
COVID-19 bailout unleashed a pandemic of fraud
The coronavirus bailout is the largest in U.S. history. While the bill will create a drag on the economy for years, an additional problem is that the massive influx of cash is ripe to e a sheer waste of taxpayer dollars. Fraud was widespread in the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Paycheck Protection Program grants, and it continues to be a problem for the extra payments within unemployment insurance. Because the bailout is larger than any other in history,...
5 lessons from Donald Trump’s tax returns
A couple making $31,900 who file with the standard deduction would pay $750 in federal e tax. That amount – $750 – is also how much Donald Trump paid in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017. The New York Times released a summary of his tax returns that sheds light on the state of his finances. Most striking is the $750 tax bill, which many find ludicrous on its face. The core of Trump’s strategy to achieve such low taxes...
The worst moment of the first presidential debate in 2020
The first presidential debate of 2020 reached an historic low in its the very first segment – not from Joe Biden calling the president a “clown” or telling him to “shut up,” nor from Donald Trump choosing to imitate Biden’s interruption-laden 2012 vice presidential debate performance on steroids. The debate descended into disaster when Joe Biden refused to answer whether he would pack the Supreme Court and alter the foundations of American justice. Sadly, most viewers will remember the style...
Everything that’s wrong with Dick Costolo’s tweet in 1,531 characters
Woke capitalism went into overdrive on Wednesday, when a former Twitter CEO seemingly endorsed the full-scale liquidation of entrepreneurs who refuse to bring politics into the workplace. Dick Costolo served as COO of Twitter before ing its CEO from 2010 to 2015. On September 30, he replied to a tweet about woke capitalism from venture capitalist Paul Graham. Graham shared a statement from the cryptocurrency exchange platform Coinbase, which vowed to “create a sense of cohesion and unity” by emphasizing...
Amy Coney Barrett: handmaid of the Lord, not the state
In their attempt to forestall the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a growing number mentators point to her membership in a Christian group that once used the term “handmaid.” This “controversy” shows, among other things, how the works of Margaret Atwood have displaced the traditional Western canon. However, it also adds a thin veneer of respectability over rehashed anti-Catholic prejudice, camouflages anti-Christian bigotry, and conceals a noxious and unconstitutional religious test for office. It takes little...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved