Grand Juries

8/8/2019 Grand Juries

1/99

Austin Citizens Grand Jury onAustin Citizens Grand Jury on

9/11 Crimes9/11 Crimes

Citizens Grand Juries:

The Shield and the Sword of the PeopleThe Cornerstone of our Constitution

The Fourth Branch of our Government,The Peoples Branch


2/99

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,

Harvard Law Review,Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907

The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries. It is of historic interest by

reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin, itsgradual development, and the part it has playedin some of the most stirring events in the historyof Anglo-Saxon countries;

it is of political interest by its protection of theliberty of the individual from the arbitrary powerof the government;


3/99

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,

Harvard Law Review,Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907

It is of legal interest in that its power and action isutterly repugnant to "the experience and theory

of English law." It has been extravagantly praised as the "security

of Englishmen's lives," the conserver of hisliberties, and the noblest check upon the maliceand oppression of individuals;

it has been bitterly assailed as "purelymischievous" and a "relic of barbarism."


4/99

Project Goals

Project Goals

Indict and Prosecute the criminals responsible for9/11

Restore Grand Juries power to protect thepeople from unfounded & harassing prosecutionby the state

Restore Grand Juries presentment power andthe peoples power to initiate and take overcriminal prosecution when state prosecutorseither refuse to prosecute or prosecute poorly

Restore the peoples right to elect Grand Jurieshave them recognized by the Courts


5/99

Project Goals

Project Goals

Restore the publics access to existing impaneledgrand juries so the people can bring evidence of

crimes to these grand juries for consideration Exercise our right to form our own grand juries to

investigate crimes & present charges, especiallyconcerning the crimes of 9/11

Publicize our presentments and findings in themedia to educate the public about 9/11 truth andto increase pressure on Congress and the JusticeDepartment to thoroughly investigate the crimesof 9/11 and prosecute those responsible


6/99

Outline of Topics

Outline of Topics

Grand Juries: Their purpose and function as theshield and the sword of the people

The Magna Carta: Grand Juries are born inEngland in 1215

Grand Juries become well - established inEngland from 1215-1600s

Grand Juries in pre-revolutionary America:The Golden Years of Grand Juries power andthe crucial function they served in our Revolution

Grand Juries power continues in early post-revolutionary America


7/99

Outline of Topics

Outline of Topics

The imperative role of private prosecution

The decline of grand juries power starting in the

mid-1800s and the 1946 Procedure Code 2 modern cases highlighting the importance of grand

juries power in bringing a halt to govt corruption

Recent Supreme Court rulings reviving grand juries

power and function Reform to restore proper grand jury function

Citizens Grand Juries - return to historic precedent

Media pressure needed today for the 9/11 Citizens

Grand Juries to have a serious impact


8/99

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone ofOurGrand Juries: The Cornerstone ofOur

ConstitutionConstitution

The grand jury is the cornerstone of ourConstitution. When it operates as it was designedby the Framers of the Constitution, the Bill ofRights cannot be infringed upon by thegovernment.

Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship,

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70

FOR MORE INFO...


9/99

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone ofOurGrand Juries: The Cornerstone ofOur


When it acts as a rubber stamp for theprosecutor, the Bill of Rights are seriouslyundermined.

By educating those called to be grand jurors, wecan begin to reclaim those rights taken away bythe federal judiciary.

Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship,

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70

FOR MORE INFO...


10/99

As a shield, grand juries protect the people fromharassing and capricious prosecution by abusive

and overreaching power of the executive branch. In order for anyone to be prosecuted for an

infamous or capital crime, a grand jury mustdetermine that there is sufficient evidence to bringthe accused to trial.

Grand Juries: The Shield of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Shield of the People


11/99

Grand Juries: The Shield of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Shield of the People

Historically, this protection was mainly put inplace to prevent the state from railroading people

into jail or long and expensive court ordealssimply for being political dissidents or fordisagreeing with the state.


12/99

Grand Jury Shield: The Fifth AmendmentGrand Jury Shield: The Fifth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitutionof the U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, orotherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a grand jury, exceptin cases arising in the land or naval forces, or inthe militia, when in actual service in time of waror public danger; nor shall any person be subjectfor the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy

of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in anycriminal case to be a witness against himself, norbe deprived of life, liberty, or property, withoutdue process of law; nor shall private property betaken for public use, without just compensation.


13/99

True Bill orNo Bill of IndictmentTrue Bill orNo Bill of Indictment

A grand jury votes on a set of proposed chargessubmitted by a prosecutor and can return charges in

either of two ways. If the grand jurors decide there is probable cause to

support the charges, they vote a "true bill," that is,they vote to return the indictment and initiate acriminal proceeding.

If the grand jurors decide there is not probable causeto support the charges, they vote a "no true bill,"which means the indictment is not returned and nocriminal case ensues.


14/99

Grand Juries: The Sword of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Sword of the People

The original name for a grand jury was The GrandInquisition.

As a sword, grand juries act as an accusatory andinvestigative body, mainly into govt corruption.

GJs may independently investigate corruption apartfrom a state prosecutor.

GJs may conduct proceedings in secret and canquestion witnesses and examine physical evidence.

GJs may submit criminal charges and other findingsaccording to their own knowledge and independentinvestigation. This is called a presentment.


15/99

Grand Juries: The Sword of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Sword of the People

Grand juries NEVER consider any evidencewhatsoever that may support the innocence of the

accused. It does not matter one iota if there are mountains of

evidence to support the innocence of the accused.

Grand juries ONLY look at accusatory evidence.

If there is enough accusatory evidence to supportprobable cause, that is all that is needed for thegrand jury to hand down an indictment orpresentment. Any evidence to support someone'sinnocence is considered by the trial jury, or the

petit jury, during the criminal trial.


16/99

Grand Juries: The Sword of the People &Grand Juries: The Sword of the People &

the 7th Amendmentthe 7th Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees us all rightsestablished through common law.

Common law developed under the inquisitorialsystem in England (the Grand Jury system) fromjudicial decisions based on custom, tradition,precedent, and a history of jurisprudence.

The right and power of grand juries to makepresentments to initiate prosecution has beenwell established through centuries ofjurisprudence through common law, thereforethis right is retained and protected in the 7th

Amendment of our Constitution.


17/99

The Seventh Amendment ofOur U.S.The Seventh Amendment ofOur U.S.


In suits at common law, where the value incontroversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the rightof trial by jury shall be preserved, and no facttried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined inany court of the United States, than according tothe rules of the common law.


18/99

A Note about Common Law, the 7thA Note about Common Law, the 7th

Amendment, and 9/11Amendment, and 9/11

Common law jurisdiction includes criminal casesas well as civil cases.

Common law deals with property rights. Most crimes involve a controversy which

exceeds twenty dollars.

The crimes of 9/11 certainly inflicted propertydamage exceeding twenty dollars.

We are well within our Constitutional rights topursue criminal grand jury investigationregarding the crimes of 9/11.


19/99

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch ofGrand Juries: The Fourth Branch of

Government, the Peoples BranchGovernment, the Peoples Branch

It is significant that the grand jury is not part ofany of the three branches of the U.S. government- it is a pre-constitutional institution.

In the mid-1800s Washington attorney John H.Clarke wrote in a motion to the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Columbia,Although today the grand jury is more of a

prosecutors panel, it is still a pre-constitutionalinstitution,


20/99



and is still a peoples panel, not captive orrelegated by the constitution to a position withinany branches And it still serves as a vehicle foreffective citizen participation in government.


21/99



Citizens often mistakenly believe that becausethe grand jury meets at the courthouse it is underthe judiciary or because the grand jury meetswith a prosecutor it is under the executivebranch.

It is actually an independent institution adoptedby the founders to protect the individual from

prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to empowerthe people to initiate and pursue prosecution.


22/99



Antonin Scalia effectively codified the uniqueindependent power of the Fourth Branch into thehands of all citizens sitting as grand jurors,including those sitting as federal grand jurors.

In discussing that power and uniqueindependence granted to the grand jury, theUnited States Supreme Court, in United States v.

Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia,delivering the opinion of the Court, laid down thelaw of the land:


23/99

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of theJustice Scalia delivers the opinion of the

Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-Americanhistory," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490(1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), thegrand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, butnot in the body of the Constitution. It has notbeen textually assigned, therefore, to any of thebranches described in the first three Articles. It

"`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'"United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312(CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)),cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "


24/99



Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is aninstitution separate from the courts, over whosefunctioning the courts do not preside..." Id.


25/99



"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that itbelongs to no branch of the institutionalGovernment, serving as a kind of buffer orreferee between the Government and the people.See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218(1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G.Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906).


26/99



Although the grand jury normally operates, ofcourse, in the courthouse and under judicialauspices, its institutional relationship with theJudicial Branch has traditionally been, so tospeak, at arm's length. Judges' directinvolvement in the functioning of the grand juryhas generally been confined to the constitutive

one of calling the grand jurors together andadministering their oaths of office. See UnitedStates v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974);Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "


27/99

Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch ofTreasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of

Government, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005Government, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005

I submit to you that this passage sets the stagefor a revolutionary new context necessary andConstitutionally mandated to We the People",THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of theUnited States.

Besides the Legislative, Executive, and Judicialbranches, I submit that there is a fourth branch,

THE GRAND JURY, and We the People whensitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted inUS v. Williams, a constitutional fixture in ourown right. That is exactly what the grand jury is,

and what it was always intended to be.


28/99

Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch ofTreasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of

Government, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005Government, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005

We the people have been charged with oversightof the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, wemust, for the protection of our ConstitutionalRepublic, take back our power and start acting aspowerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. We the people have theright and power under the 5th and 7thAmendments of the Constitution to charge thisgovernment with crimes by returningpresentments regardless of whether the US

Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us.


29/99

If Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand juryIf Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand jury --

Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3

No. 4, 1999No. 4, 1999

A "runaway" grand jury, loosely defined as agrand jury which resists the accusatory choicesof a government prosecutor.

Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact thecommon law grand jury of the past.

Prior to the emergence of governmental

prosecution as the standard model of Americancriminal justice, all grand juries were in fact"runaways," according to the definition ofmodern times.


30/99

If Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand juryIf Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand jury --

Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3

No. 4, 1999No. 4, 1999

they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power topursue unlawful conduct to its very source,including the government itself.


31/99

The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History andThe Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and

DevelopmentDevelopment -- George J. Edwards, 1906George J. Edwards, 1906

The origin of the grand jury has given rise to muchdiscussion among legal scholars. Numerous andwidely differing conclusions have been offered.

Some have claimed to find traces of the institutionamong the Athenians. But if such an institution everexisted in Athens it had become extinct before theexistence of Britain became known to the

Mediterranean Countries.


32/99

The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History andThe Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and

DevelopmentDevelopment -- George J. Edwards, 1906George J. Edwards, 1906

Athenian history does mention practices similar tothe Normans tradition of trial by a large number ofjurors, however there is nothing in Athenian historythat mentions an accusatory body of citizens.

Some writers claim the institution has an Anglo-Saxon origin, others urge that juries were unknownto the Anglo-Saxons and were introduced by the

Normans after their Conquest of England in 1066.

The Magna Carta is the first major historicaldocument enumerating an accusatory body of thepeople.


33/99

The Magna Carta, the precursor ofThe Magna Carta, the precursor of

our Constitutionour Constitution King John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother

Richard I. He lacked his brothers militaryprowess and he spent much of his reignattempting to recover lost English possessions inFrance. To finance his military campaigns, heresorted to harsh taxation of his subjects, whichprovoked growing unrest.

The Battle of Bouvines in July 1214 marked theend of English hopes of regaining Normandy.Opposition to King John intensified, and he wasno longer able to resist the barons demand that

their liberties be confirmed.


34/99


our Constitutionour Constitution Abuses by King John caused a revolt by barons

who forced him to sign and enact this recognitionof rights for both noblemen and ordinaryEnglishmen. It established the principle that noone, including the king or a lawmaker, is abovethe law.

On June 10, 1215, the barons took London by

force with their militias and forced King John toeither sign the document or loose his head at theRiver Thames. In return the barons renewed theiroaths of fealty, or allegiance, to the king.


35/99


our Constitutionour Constitution The constitutional importance of Magna Carta lies

in the fact that it placed limits upon the absolutepower of the King and made him subject to thelaw.

The most famous of its sixty-three clauses saidthat no free man could be imprisoned, outlawed,or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his

peers, and that justice could not be sold, delayedor denied.

It also contained clauses relating to the treatmentof heirs and widows and to the payment of debts.


36/99


our Constitutionour Constitution It provided for uniform measures of wine, ale,

corn and cloth throughout the realm.

It confirmed the liberties of the Church. It sought to regulate the conduct of all local

officials such as sheriffs, bailiffs, and constables,and to ensure that they knew and observed thelaw.


37/99

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The FirstThe Magna Carta, Article 61: The First

Accusatory Body of the PeopleAccusatory Body of the People

The most significant clause forKing John at thetime was clause 61, known as the "securityclause", the longest portion of the document.

This established a committee of 25 barons whocould at any time meet and over-rule the will ofthe King, through force by seizing his castles andpossessions if needed.


38/99



This was based on a medieval legal practiceknown as distraint, which was commonly done,but it was the first time it had been applied to amonarch. In addition, the King was to take anoath of loyalty to the committee.

In English law, distraintordistress, is a remedyfor non-payment of rent. It involves the seizure of

goods belonging to the tenant by the landlord tosell them for the payment of the rent.


39/99



Using the practice of distraint as the foundingprinciple of the Magna Carta is of significantimportance. The barons asserted their right toseize the kings possessions and overrule theking in the event that the king would not makeredress of grievances to the people.

This set the precedent that the king as a ruler is a

mere tenant, and that the king owed payment tothe people in the form of redress of grievances inreturn for the people allowing him to rule. Ifredress is not made, the people have the right toseize his possessions as payment.


40/99



Up until this time, the right of the monarch to rulewas considered absolute and unconditional. Now,the barons asserted that the kings rulingauthority was not an inherent right but rather aprivilege granted by the people, that could berevoked by the people, and furthermore aprivilege that required payment to the people in

the form of redress of grievances. If payment was not made, the people had the right

to evict the king from his ruling position as wellas seize all the kings possessions in lieu ofpayment of redress of grievances.


41/99


42/99


our Constitutionour Constitution The proper principle was established that it is

We the people who are the landlords andowners of the governmental positions ofauthority, the We the people grant the privilegeof authority to the tenants of these governmentpositions, this privilege can be revoked for non-payment of redress of grievance, our tenants

can be evicted from their positions, paymentseized by confiscation of our tenants materialpossessions, and most importantly it is theliberties and rights of the people that areinherent and in-alienable.


43/99



SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGSFOR GOD, for the better ordering of our kingdom,and to allay the discord that has arisen betweenus and our barons, and since we desire that theyshall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lastingstrength, for ever, we give and grant to thebarons the following security:


44/99



The barons shall elect twenty-five of theirnumber to keep, and cause to be observed withall their might, the peace and liberties grantedand confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of ourservants offend in any respect against any man,or transgress any of the articles of the peace or

of this security, and the offence is made known tofour of the said twenty-five barons, they shallcome to us - or in our absence from the kingdomto the chief justice - to declare it and claimimmediate redress.


45/99



If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice,make no redress within forty days, reckoningfrom the day on which the offence was declaredto us or to him, the four barons shall refer thematter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, whomay distrain upon and assail us in every waypossible,


46/99



with the support of the whole community of theland, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions,or anything else saving only our own person andthose of the queen and our children, until theyhave secured such redress as they havedetermined upon. Having secured the redress,they may then resume their normal obedience to

us.


47/99

A Side Note: The Invisible GovernmentA Side Note: The Invisible Government

SpeaksSpeaks

King John had been forced to agree to the MagnaCarta, and he immediately attempted to have itannulled by the Pope, who issued a papal bullsaying that it was as unjust and unlawful as it isbase and shameful.

Pope Innocent III annulled the "shameful anddemeaning agreement, forced upon the king by

violence and fear." He rejected any call for rights,saying it impaired King John's dignity. He saw itas an affront to the Church's authority over theking and released John from his oath to obey it.


48/99

Civil War EnsuesCivil War Ensues

King John had no intention to honour Magna Carta,as it was sealed under extortion by force, andclause 61 essentially neutered his power as amonarch, making him King in name only. Herenounced it as soon as the barons left London,plunging England into a civil war, called the FirstBarons War.


49/99

Grand Juries are a SecondGrand Juries are a Second

Amendment IssueAmendment Issue -- Michael BadnarikMichael Badnarik The only reason the barons were able to assert and

enforce their rights was because they were armedand the king had squandered his army onimperialistic and unsuccessful war campaigns.

The only reason we havent had all our rights takenaway is because we have the right to bear arms.

We have the power to exercise and enforce our

rights only as long as we can defend ourselves.


50/99

Grand Juries are a SecondGrand Juries are a Second

Amendment IssueAmendment Issue -- Michael BadnarikMichael Badnarik Historically, one of the first things that tyrannical

dictators have done as soon as they gain power isto disarm the people. Once the populace isdisarmed, these tyrants can easily take awaypeoples rights & liberties, install a police state, andbegin the process of genocide.

The second amendment was mainly put in place to

protect the people from abusive and tyrannicalgovernment taking away not only our rights andliberties but our very lives as well.

Self-defense from common street criminals is

secondary to this principle.


51/99

Development of the Grand JuryDevelopment of the Grand Jury

from George J. Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906from George J. Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906

In England during the late 1200s & early 1300s,the court & the sheriffs established the practice ofimpaneling accusing bodies known as inquests or

juries.

For every group of 100 people, 4-16 people weresummoned by the court bailiffs to be accusers andpresent offences occurring within that hundred.


52/99



This practice was established because the kingfelt there was not a sufficient constabulary andmore surveillance was needed over the

population.

The king felt there were too many people and toofew sheriffs & deputies to monitor the population,so the people were conscripted to be snitches.


53/99



These inquest juries of the 100s were impaneledto be an arm of the central government, acting as apublic prosecutor for the purpose of ferreting out

crime.

The members of the inquestwere at all timesbound to inform the court either singly orcollectively their reasons for arriving at their

verdict and the evidence upon which it was based.


54/99



These inquest juries reported to the courtevidence of crimes based on personalknowledge. The court had the power to

interrogate the inquest juries concerning theirknowledge and as to how they arrived at theirpresentments.

These inquest juries were conscripted tattlers.

If offences were not reported, the jurors would beheavily penalized.


55/99

The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368

Due to increasing population over time, the inquestjuries of the 100s became impractical.

In 1368, during the reign of Edward III, the sheriffsbegan to expand the proceedings of the inquestjuries to investigate and present offences for theentire county at large.

The number of jurors for each county inquestwasincreased to 24.

The Grand Jury: Its Origin,History, and Development-

George J. Edwards, 1906

FOR MORE INFO...


56/99

The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368

This body received the name le graunde inquest,which means the grand inquisition.

This is the first official reference of the grandjury.



FOR MORE INFO...


57/99

The Grand Jury starts to gainThe Grand Jury starts to gain

independenceindependence When the grand inquestwas established to

investigate and present for the entire county, thejurors personal knowledge of the facts in most

cases became more limited.

Hence, the practice of juror interrogation andrequiring the grand inquestto divulge to the courttheir knowledge and reasons upon which their

presentment was based began to fall into disuse.



FOR MORE INFO...


58/99

The beginning of Grand JuriesThe beginning of Grand Juries

secrecysecrecy Because the grand inquests presented crimes for

the entire county, the monarchy became moreconcerned that the actions of the grande inquests

might become known to the accused andtherefore would allow for the defendants escape.

The inquests were then sworn under oath to keeptheir proceedings secret.



FOR MORE INFO...


59/99

The Grand Jurors OathThe Grand Jurors Oath

"that they will lawful presentment make of suchchapters as shall be delivered to them in writingand in this they will not fail for any love, hatred,

fear, reward, or promise, and that they willconceal the secrets, so help them God and theSaints."



FOR MORE INFO...


60/99


With the arrival of the grand inquestto inquireand present for the county at large, combinedwith the disappearance of the accusing bodies of

the hundreds, we practically complete what maybe termed the period of formation in thedevelopment of the grand jury.



FOR MORE INFO...


61/99

The independence of the Grand JuryThe independence of the Grand Jury

becomes establishedbecomes established

It was in this period that the independence of thegrand jury became established. Grand juries wereno longer required to make known to the court

the evidence upon which they acted nor thereasons for their conclusions.

They met in secret and were sworn to keep theirproceedings secret by an oath which contained

no reservation in favor of the government.



FOR MORE INFO...


62/99



The three centuries that followed documentsgrand juries freedom of action from all restraintby the court.

The independence which the institution hadattained would be put to severe tests.



FOR MORE INFO...


63/99



However, since grand juries were protected bythe cloak of secrecy and free from the control ofthe court concerning their findings, they

successfully thwarted the unjust designs of thecorrupt monarchical government.



FOR MORE INFO...


64/99



By the 1600s, grand juries were stronglyasserting their independence and beganfunctioning as the peoples shield from the

crowns abusive prosecution against politicaldissidents.

It was in the reign of Charles the Second that wefind the two most celebrated instances of the

fearless action of the grand jury in defending theliberty of the individual, although subjected to thestrongest possible pressure from the crown.


65/99


66/99

The Case of Stephen College, a religiousThe Case of Stephen College, a religious

and political dissidentand political dissident

The grand jury then demanded that the witnesses besent to them that they might examine them privately.After considering the matter for several hours the

grand jury ignored the bill.

Upon being asked by the Lord Chief Justice to givea reason for this verdict, they replied that they hadgiven their verdict according to their consciences

and would stand by it. The jurors exercised their right of secrecy of

deliberations and refused to be interrogated by thecourt concerning their findings.


67/99

The Case of Stephen College, a religiousThe Case of Stephen College, a religious

and political dissidentand political dissident

The foreman of this grand jury, Mr. Wilmore, wasafterwards apprehended upon a false charge,examined before the Council, sent to the tower, and

afterward forced to flee beyond the seas.


68/99

The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl ofThe Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of

Shaftesbury, a religious & political dissidentShaftesbury, a religious & political dissident

During the mid 1600s, Anthony Cooper, the Earl ofShaftesbury, was a member of Parliament andsupported a strong Parliament as well as religious

tolerance.

He became suspicious of the king's efforts toimprove the position of Roman Catholics.

Cooper opposed the king and sided with theParliamentarians in the English Civil Wars of themid 1600s.


69/99


Shaftesbury, a religious & political dissidentShaftesbury, a religious & political dissident In 1681, the same year as the College case, an

attempt was made to indict Cooper for high treason.

As in College's case, the grand jury desired to hearthe evidence in private, as was standard procedure,but the king's counsel insisted that the evidence beheard in open court and Lord Chief JusticePemberton assented.


70/99


Shaftesbury, a religious & political dissidentShaftesbury, a religious & political dissident Just as in the Stephen College case, after hearing

the evidence in open court the grand jury desiredthat they might examine the witnesses privately in

their chamber and the court granted the request.

After again hearing the witnesses and consideringtheir verdict they returned the bill "ignoramus,"upon which "the people fell a hollowing and a

shouting.


71/99

King Charles unsuccessfully tries toKing Charles unsuccessfully tries to

retaliateretaliate Because of the failure of the king to coerce grand

juries to his oppressive purpose, the king'sofficials sought a method whereby justice might

be served with results more agreeable to theirroyal master.

A statute was enacted empowering judges andjustices to reform grand jury panels by taking

out the names of improper persons and puttingin others according to their discretion.

The sheriff was then to be required to return thepanel as reformed by the court.


72/99


retaliateretaliate The crowns excuse for this statute was an

alleged abuse of power by the sheriffs regardingthe selection and returning of grand jurors.

They accused the sheriffs of packing the panelswith those who would carry out any allegednefarious designs of the sheriffs.


73/99


retaliateretaliate Through this statute, Sir Robert Sawyer, the

attorney general, sought to employ to carry outthe wishes of the crown.

The Court of Sessions endeavored to compel thesheriffs to return the panels as they directed, butthe sheriffs refused.


74/99


becomes establishedbecomes established Grand Juries rule of secrecy allowed them to

function out of the sight of the King's prosecutorsor other meddlers.

It was their secrecy that provided the grand jurieswith their greatest power as an independentpopulist body, equipped with oversight power onthe government.

They were a group of people who stood as acheck on government, often in direct oppositionto the desires of those in power.


75/99

Grand Juries are Brought to AmericaGrand Juries are Brought to America

When the settlement of America was begun byEnglishmen, they brought with them all the civilrights which they enjoyed in their native land, and

with them came the grand jury.

The Grand Juries became one of the fundamentalfoundations of common law in the Americancolonies and is the oldest institution in Americas

criminal justice system. Grand Juries quickly became vehicles for popular

anti-monarchical ideology for the Englishcolonists in America.


76/99

Grand Juries gain more strength andGrand Juries gain more strength and

independenceindependence In the early American experience, the grand jury

became more a part of local government than ithad ever been in England.

A grand jury in Virginia in 1662 would meet twotimes a year "to levy taxes and oversee spending,supervise public works, appoint local officials,and consider criminal accusations.

Connecticut grand juries were elected and werelevying taxes and conducting local governmentwork by the middle of the 1700s.


77/99


independenceindependence In many colonies, grand jurors gathered "from all

the several Parts of the County to represent theState.

Pre-revolutionary writers similarly spoke of grand

juries as representative bodies.

The New York WeeklyJournalstated in 1734:

"Does not the grand jury (tho' chose by theSheriff) represent the county? In a manner ofspeaking, yes: grand jurymen represented not agroup of constituents, but local knowledge.


78/99


independenceindependence The grand jury was the initiatorof prosecutions,

acting "in several of the colonies as spokesmenfor the people . . . and [as] vehicles for complaints

against officialdom."

in America, the grand jury originally began as adefense against the monarchy, and became muchmore independent than the English grand jury of

the 1600s. American grand juries initiated prosecutions

against corrupt agents of the British government,often in response to complaints from individuals.


79/99

Grand Juries crucial role in theGrand Juries crucial role in the

American RevolutionAmerican Revolution In pre-Revolutionary America, grand juries took

on a life of their own.

The grand jury that the drafters of the Bill ofRights knew was much more powerful than anyknown in England.

The actions of grand juries figured prominently inthe beginnings of the Revolution.


80/99


American RevolutionAmerican Revolution In 1765, a Boston grand jury refused to indict

Colonists who had led riots against the Stamp Act.

A Philadelphia Grand Jury condemned the use ofthe tea tax to compensate British officials,encouraged a rejection of all British goods, andcalled for organization with other colonies todemand redress of grievances.


81/99


American RevolutionAmerican Revolution A Boston Grand Jury in 1769 indicted British

soldiers for alleged crimes of breaking andentering private homes of citizens.

Grand Juries refused to indict certain colonistswho had been charged by the British authoritiesfor inciting desertion and other alleged crimesagainst the king.

Grand Juries indicted for treason anyone whojoined or colluded with the British army.


82/99


83/99


American RevolutionAmerican Revolution The public proclamations of these grand juries

were drastically different from anything we knowtoday.

They were often circulated in local and nationalnewspapers in an effort to "fuel the revolutionaryfire."


84/99

Grand Juries in early America protectGrand Juries in early America protect

Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason Aaron Burr was targeted by the federal

government in the early 1800s.

After a bizarre political career, Burr was dislikedby both the Federalists and Republicans.

The U.S. Attorney forKentucky, a staunchFederalist aligned with President Jefferson,moved that a grand jury be summoned to

consider charges against Burr for his allegedattempt to involve the United States in a war withSpain.


85/99


Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason This grand jury from Republican-dominatedKentucky returned an "ignoramus bill," decliningto indict Burr on the evidence.

Going even further, the grand jury issued awritten declaration in its presentment directed tothe court in which they declared that Burr failedto exhibit "any design inimical to the peace and

well-being of the country."


86/99


Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason A second grand jury proceeding convened in

Mississippi Territory to consider similar treasoncharges against Burr relating to his expedition

down the Mississippi River.

It was alleged that Burr intended to capture NewOrleans, a city of nine thousand people protectedby a thousand United States soldiers, using sixty

unarmedmen in ten boats.


87/99


Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason The Mississippi grand jury not only declined to

indict Burr in the affair, but returnedpresentments which clearly labeled the

government's attempted charges as a vindictiveprosecution.

The presentment concluded that "Aaron Burrhasnot been guiltyof anycrime or misdemeanor

against the laws of the United States or of thisTerritory."


88/99

Grand Juries in early AmericaGrand Juries in early America

expose political corruptionexpose political corruption Furthermore, the grand jury declared that the

arrests of Burr and his co-travelers had beenmade without warrant, and . . . without other

lawful authority, and represented a grievancedestructive of personal liberty.


89/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption In resounding condemnation, the grand jury

pronounced its regret that the enemies of ourglorious Constitution had rejoiced at the

attempted persecution of Aaron Burr andexpressed the opinion that such prosecutorialmisconduct must sap the vitals of our politicalexistence, and crumble this glorious fabric in thedust.


90/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The grand jury's presentment power was used

not only to accuse wrongdoers when governmentprosecutors refused to do so, but to publicly

declare the innocence of a targeted suspect in thevery face of opposition by the prosecution.


91/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The Mississippi grand jury was a "runaway" by

today's standards.

Yet a grand jury acting in such way offered

precisely the type of protection envisioned bythe Framers when they included the institution inthe Bill of Rights as a check on the power of thegovernment.


92/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The Mississippi grand jury's presentment

included a bold attackon the prosecution itself an occurrence scarcely imaginable today.

It was the grand jury's power overitspresentments, rather than its indictments, thatmade it so fearsome.


93/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The effectiveness of early American grand juries

in ferreting out the shortcomings of publicofficials can be gauged from the long lists of

grand jury presentments of early America.

"Very little escaped the attention of the grandjurymen, which even took notice of the failuresof town councils to provide stocks or a whipping

post to punish offenders.


94/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption Throughout the 19th century, grand juries often

acted on their own initiative in the face of directopposition from a district attorney.


95/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption An independently acting grand jury probed and

"toppled the notorious Boss Tweed and hiscronies" in New York City in 1872.

Without the prosecutor's assistance, the Tweedgrand jury independently carried out its owninvestigation in a district that had otherwise beenvery loyal to Tweed.

The media played a crucial role in this case. TheNYT highly publicized the case despite beingoffered $5 million to keep quiet.


96/99


expose political corruptionexpose political corruption In 1902, a Minneapolis grand jury on its own

initiative hired private detectives and collectedenough evidence to indict the mayor and force

the police chief to resign.

This grand jury virtually governed the city until anew administration could be hired.

In 1907 in San Francisco, a grand jury indicted

the mayor and replaced him.


97/99

The Imperative Role ofPrivateThe Imperative Role ofPrivate

ProsecutionProsecution In England every private person had the same

rights as the Attorney General to initiate aprosecution.

Once a case had been presented to the grandjury, it was entirely out of the prosecutor's hands.

In the early days of our Republic "prosecutor"was simply anyone who voluntarily went before

the grand jury with a complaint.


98/99


ProsecutionProsecution Until 1853 there was nowhere general organized

control of Federal prosecution.

The Department of Justice was not created untilJune 22, 1870. At the time the only authority theJustice Department had was to investigate postalcrimes and compile crime statistics.

Even in 1897 private citizens could still have

arrest warrants issued.

At that time grand jurors themselves were theonly ones competent to ascertain who was theprosecutor.


99/99


ProsecutionProsecution The rise of the "public prosecutor," both at the

federal and state levels, has drastically alteredgrand jury function.

Of 448 cases examined in 1838, there were 80 "no

bills."

In 1976 there were 23,000 federal indictmentsreturned but only 123 no bills.

Grand Juries

Documents

Transcript of Grand Juries