By law, they operate in secret and hear only evidence presented by prosecutors, who also instruct the grand jurors on the law. Defense lawyers are barred from speaking. [/b
secrecy and a unanimous decision by 12 voters just to go to trial? man. Lawyers, what's the logic behind this?
Grand juries are just really stupid. In ye olde english times the grand jury was an accusing body made by the king to identify people committing crimes, but the grand jury could refuse royal pressure to indict, so it was protection against unfair charges.
One of its functions is
supposed to be like that today -- to protect citizens (and their reputations) from potential tyranny by ("secretly") refusing to indict when the prosecutor (an arm of the executive branch) brings unjust charges. The secrecy is supposed to prevent the accused's reputation. Secrecy justifications (pulled straight from last semester's outline!) include
1. To prevent the escape of those who may be indicted (targets)
2. To insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations
3. To prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses or jurors
4. To encourage free disclosure by witnesses
5. To protect the innocent accused who is exonerated from the fact that he has been under investigation.
But in reality, its screening function is purely for show. If the prosecutor wants an indictment, he gets one: It's non-adversarial (defendant isn't present or represented by anyone to argue his side); The standard of proof is probable cause; all sorts of evidence that is inadmissible at trial is admissible in front of the Grand Jury. Everything is stacked so the Prosecutor "wins" at this stage (as long as he wants to win).
Also 12 is the minimum number of people who vote to indict before it can go to trial...I don't know how it works state by state, but at least federally, there are 23 people who sit on the grand jury.