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†

[xzins]

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 ( 1992 ),
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority , confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA WENT ON TO SAY :
(in U.S v. Williams) “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right ”.

[Excellence]

srbfl

[basil]

self ping to read later

[DaveinOK54]

What a great read. Thanks for this.

[Tanniker Smith]

ping to read later.

Served on the grand jury twice. It was an interesting experience, moreso because I was the foreman both times. (First time was sort of an accident.)

[xzins]

It was a new concept for me, too. Had an acquaintance send it to me yesterday. I’m hoping that our FReepers can dissect and analyze it. The Scalia quote truly makes it intriguing.

[xzins]

Truly, what happens if a prosecutor presents a case to a grand jury, they note shenanigans in the prosecutor’s presentation, and bring an indictment against him or the cops or the judges based on the information presented.

Does the justice system then have an OBLIGATION to pursue that?

[generally]

I liked the Scalia quote, too.

IMO, one of the main reasons that the government (particularly the judicial system) is oppressive and out of control, is that most of us don’t have time (or interest or patience) to plow through long and complex things like this article, unless they are directly and immediately affecting us. The court and the legislators bury unpleasant, unpopular, and objectionable things in mountains of legalese that few people ever see. This article is similar. Not a slam on the article, just an observation.

P.S. Thank you for your service. God bless you!

[xzins]

I have had one lawyer friend, a very good, honorable guy, look at this and conclude that it’s wrong.

My libertarian friend who sent it to me expressed some hopes that a “grand jury” movement would provide a means of confronting a run-away Federal government.

So, the Scalia quote makes it intriguing, but the lawyer friend’s disagreement says to me that the idea needs first to be meticulously analyzed.

[voicereason]

Ping for later digestion...

[xzins]

After you’ve digested it, get back with your thoughts. It will be good to hear them.

[VanShuyten]

For later

[P-Marlowe]

It’s too bad you had to excerpt this article. :-)

I hadn’t given much thought to this issue before.

I immediately thought of Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case posse.

[Girlene]

Fascinating. I had no idea about the history of the federal grand jury.

The enactment in 1946 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has greatly decreased the power of federal grand juries. While widely thought of as a gift to defense attorneys at the time,[125] the codification of grand jury practice into Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has largely confined the grand jury to its present state of impotence and has done little to protect defendants from the modern "runaway" federal government. Present federal grand jury practice, which forbids grand jurors from issuing presentments without consent of a federal prosecutor, is unconstitutional and violative of the historical principles on which the creation of the grand jury was premised.

So my first question is ... has the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures (specifically, Rule 6) ever been challenged in court? (Of course the federal courts have little incentive to reduce their own powers).

We certainly have a runaway federal government today.

[xzins]

Is it possible for legislative or judicial action to change a 5th amendment provision?

[xzins]

See #8.

What if a case before a legitimate grand jury dealt with a school murder like in Sandy Hook?

And...what if that Grand Jury heard the prosecutor and in addition to indicting the “shooter”, they also indicted the School System for failure to protect?

[BuckeyeTexan]

I don’t have the time at the moment to post Leo’s grand jury articles (in full) to this thread/discussion. Can/will you do it? I would greatly appreciate it.

[Girlene]

I wouldn’t think so. We still have the official requirement of the indictment of a Grand Jury in existence today....but it sounds like the rules have changed. Again, has this ever been challenged, and if not...why not?

Do you know what the case was about in which Scalia made his comments?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Of-interest ping