The Grand Jury: Historical Roots, Contemporary Operation and Calls for Reform

A primary criticism often leveled at the grand jury system lies in the notion that “prosecutorial control ” is exercised over various jury members as well as the screening process that occurs within the grand jury process. Critics of this system contend that grand juries acquiesce to the prosecuting attorney’s wishes by essentially “rubber stamping ” indictments that are sought by prosecutors. The accusation that grand juries simply do the bidding of prosecutors by rubber stamping indictments- thus failing to exercise independent judgment in their deliberations- is strikingly tautological: evidence of “prosecutorial dominance ” is found in exceptionally high indictment rates, and high indictment rates are taken as evidence that grand juries rubber stamp requests for indictments. This article demonstrates why such claims do not realistically appraise the current grand jury system, providing instead a misleading and pessimistic view of a system that, in fact, fulfills its function in an efficient and ethical manner, regardless of claims to the contrary. Origins and Evolution of the Grand Jury The origins of today’s grand jury system are traceable to the Assize of Clarendon, a decree having the force of law issued by King Henry II in 1166. The royal edict provided that a jury of 12 “good and lawful