Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Grand Jury proceeding (definition)
|
"Ex party investigatory proceeding to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of the criminal laws has occurred, not a trial"
- WILLIAMS, dissent |
|
|
5A guarantees...
|
All federal defendants get a grand jury
|
|
|
Not all states..
|
require grand juries, though most require them for serious state felonies
|
|
|
5A incorporation
|
Doesn't incorporate under 14A
HURTADO |
|
|
6A impact
|
doesn't apply to grand juries because only applies to criminal trials
|
|
|
Characteristics of grand jury
|
Serve for indefinite period (not longer than 18 mos)
Very secretive Rules of evidence do not apply Independent Courts reluctant to review grand jury processes |
|
|
Grand juries--why secretive?
|
Encourages witnesses to testify
Protect those who are charged but not indicted |
|
|
Grand juries--how independent?
|
Grand jury not under any branch (in the BofR, not Articles)
But in practice, not really independent of pros control Some states allow heavier judicial monitoring |
|
|
Grand juries--why courts reluctant to review?
|
Judges rarely dismiss indictments for lack of evidence
If reviewed, administratively costly and delay adjudication |
|
|
Two roles of Grand Juries
|
Investigation
Accusation |
|
|
Investigative role
|
Broad subpoena power
Mechanisms to induce witnesses to testify |
|
|
Mechanisms to induce witnesses to testify
|
Immunity
Secrecy |
|
|
Types of immunity
|
Use immunity--anything witnesses say cannot be used against witness in later proceedings
Transactional immunity--gov't cannot prosecute witness at all Pocket immunity--prosecutor's tool, variation of pros decision not to prosecute |
|
|
Accusation
|
Secrecy
--at federal level, no judges or defendants present --at state level, some allow judges or def testimony No C requirement for PROS to provide info favorable to D Low level of proof for indictment --GJ indicts where a "probable cause" --GJ does not have to consider all substantial exculpatory evid. |
|
|
COSTELLO v US: Facts
|
D indicted for tax evasion, court allows indictment based solely on hearsay evidence
|
|
|
COSTELLO v US: Holdings
|
Right to GJ doesn't mean evidence rules apply
--applying evid rules would make things inefficient --not used in UK system, which was the model Very limited judicial review of indictment on the merits --more likely to win by quashing on procedural grounds --policy: more review would mean more admin. cost |
|
|
COSTELLO v US: Concurrence
|
Doesn't matter that its hearsay, as long as evidence is substantial and rationally persuasive
|
|
|
US v WILLIAMS: Facts
|
D incited on financial fraud, at trial tries to motion to have indictment dismissed b/c gov't didn't present "substantial exculpatory evidence" at GJ; court finds for gov't
|
|
|
US v WILLIAMS: Holdings
|
Courts can't monitor GJ beyond C violation, non-disclosure not a C violation
No need for disclosure b/c GJ not adjudicative body GJ not like a criminal proceeding, b/c in GJ: --no double jeopardy --no right to counsel --illegally obtained evidence OK --hearsay rule does not apply |
|
|
US v WILLIAMS: Dissent
|
Even though not assigned to any branch, GJs still under court control and courts/Congress have to work together to ensure no PROS abuse of system
|
