IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY (Do "The People" Own 5th Amendment Grand Jury?)

CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821 ^ | ROGER ROOTS†

[Girlene]

The SCOTUS essentially said that the prosecutor does not have to present evidence in favor of the accused because the purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not there is enough suspicion of a crime to refer the matter to a trial jury.

Agreed.

As to the rest of your post, how would a grand jury be able to call any witness or investigate any evidence that the prosecutor did not provide? IOW, the prosecutor controls the flow of information into the grand jury. A jury wouldn't know of a witness to cross if it was never made aware of that person.

[BuckeyeTexan]

As to the rest of your post, how would a grand jury be able to call any witness or investigate any evidence that the prosecutor did not provide? IOW, the prosecutor controls the flow of information into the grand jury. A jury wouldn't know of a witness to cross if it was never made aware of that person.

As for investigating evidence not provided by the prosecutor, here's one example.

A prosecutor presents evidence to a federal grand jury empaneled by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that John Doe was engaged In money laundering for a criminal organization in Las Vegas. The grand jury considers the evidence presented. Then a member of the grand jury says, "Fellow members, it has come to my attention that Senator Harry Reid has been engaged in organized crime and large scale fraud. Let us issue a subpoena ordering Jim Smith to testify about his direct knowledge of said activity and to produce any evidence in his possession with respect to said activity."

Note that the federal prosecutor does not have the authority to issue subpoenas ordering testimony or the production of evidence. That authority exists with the grand jury. Any subpoenas issued by the federal prosecutor are issued in the name of the grand jury. Also note that while the prosecutor typically questions witnesses before the grand jury that any member of the grand jury can question witnesses. The prosecutor cannot prevent a grand jury from issuing subpoenas and questioning witnesses.

So the grand jury hears testimony about Harry Reid and ultimately issues a presentment for his prosecution. With that said, if the prosecutor decides he doesn't like what's going on, theoretically he can go to the judge and ask him to dismiss the grand jury and he can refuse to prosecute Harry Reid under said presentment.

This is what we need to test! We need to force those thugs to prosecute under any presentment issued by a legally empaneled federal grand jury.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Meant to ping you to 42.

[rdb3]

Great thread, xzins.

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.