deborah's presentation on grand juries

Austin Citizens’ Grand Jury on Austin Citizens’ Grand Jury on 9/11 Crimes 9/11 Crimes

Citizens’ Grand Juries:The Shield and the Sword of the People The Cornerstone of our ConstitutionThe Fourth Branch of our Government, “The People’s Branch”

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, Harvard Law Review, Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907

The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries. It is of historic interest by reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin, its gradual development, and the part it has played in some of the most stirring events in the history of Anglo-Saxon countries;

it is of political interest by its protection of the liberty of the individual from the arbitrary power of the government;

A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards, Harvard Law Review, Harvard Law Review, Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907Vol 20, No. 8, June 1907

It is of legal interest in that its power and action is utterly repugnant to "the experience and theory of English law."

It has been extravagantly praised as the "security of Englishmen's lives," the conserver of his liberties, and the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals;

it has been bitterly assailed as "purely mischievous" and a "relic of barbarism."

Project GoalsProject Goals

Indict and Prosecute the criminals responsible for 9/11

Restore Grand Juries’ power to protect the people from unfounded & harassing prosecution by the state

Restore Grand Juries’ presentment power and the peoples’ power to initiate and take over criminal prosecution when state prosecutors either refuse to prosecute or prosecute poorly

Restore the peoples’ right to elect Grand Juries have them recognized by the Courts

Project GoalsProject Goals

Restore the public’s access to existing impaneled grand juries so the people can bring evidence of crimes to these grand juries for consideration

Exercise our right to form our own grand juries to investigate crimes & present charges, especially concerning the crimes of 9/11

Publicize our presentments and findings in the media to educate the public about 9/11 truth and to increase pressure on Congress and the Justice Department to thoroughly investigate the crimes of 9/11 and prosecute those responsible

Outline of TopicsOutline of Topics

Grand Juries: Their purpose and function as the shield and the sword of the people

The Magna Carta: Grand Juries are born in England in 1215

Grand Juries become well - established in England from 1215-1600’s

Grand Juries in pre-revolutionary America: The “Golden Years” of Grand Juries’ power and the crucial function they served in our Revolution

Grand Juries power continues in early post-revolutionary America

Outline of Topics Outline of Topics

The imperative role of private prosecution The decline of grand juries’ power starting in the

mid-1800’s and the 1946 Procedure Code 2 modern cases highlighting the importance of grand juries’

power in bringing a halt to govt’ corruption Recent Supreme Court rulings reviving grand juries’ power

and function Reform to restore proper grand jury function Citizens’ Grand Juries - return to historic precedent Media pressure needed today for the 9/11 Citizens’ Grand

Juries to have a serious impact

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our ConstitutionConstitution The grand jury is the cornerstone of our

Constitution. When it operates as it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship, http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70

FOR MORE INFO...

Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our Grand Juries: The Cornerstone of Our ConstitutionConstitution When it acts as a rubber stamp for the

prosecutor, the Bill of Rights are seriously undermined.

By educating those called to be grand jurors, we can begin to reclaim those rights taken away by the federal judiciary.

Mike Brown, Information for Good Citizenship, http://www.home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70

FOR MORE INFO...

As a shield, grand juries protect the people from harassing and capricious prosecution by abusive and overreaching power of the executive branch.

In order for anyone to be prosecuted for an “infamous” or “capital” crime, a grand jury must determine that there is sufficient evidence to bring the accused to trial.

Grand Juries: The Shield of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Shield of the People

Grand Juries: The Shield of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Shield of the People

Historically, this protection was mainly put in place to prevent the state from railroading people into jail or long and expensive court ordeals simply for being political dissidents or for disagreeing with the state.

Grand Jury Shield: The Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Shield: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitutionof the U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

““True Bill” or “No Bill” of IndictmentTrue Bill” or “No Bill” of Indictment

A grand jury votes on a set of proposed charges submitted by a prosecutor and can return charges in either of two ways.

If the grand jurors decide there is probable cause to support the charges, they vote a "true bill," that is, they vote to return the indictment and initiate a criminal proceeding.

If the grand jurors decide there is not probable cause to support the charges, they vote a "no true bill," which means the indictment is not returned and no criminal case ensues.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Sword of the People

The original name for a grand jury was “The Grand Inquisition”.

As a sword, grand juries act as an accusatory and investigative body, mainly into gov’t corruption.

GJ’s may independently investigate corruption apart from a state prosecutor.

GJ’s may conduct proceedings in secret and can question witnesses and examine physical evidence.

GJ’s may submit criminal charges and other findings according to their own knowledge and independent investigation. This is called a “presentment”.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the PeopleGrand Juries: The Sword of the People

Grand juries NEVER consider any evidence whatsoever that may support the innocence of the accused.

It does not matter one iota if there are mountains of evidence to support the innocence of the accused. Grand juries ONLY look at accusatory evidence.

If there is enough accusatory evidence to support probable cause, that is all that is needed for the grand jury to hand down an indictment or presentment. Any evidence to support someone's innocence is considered by the trial jury, or the petit jury, during the criminal trial.

Grand Juries: The Sword of the People & Grand Juries: The Sword of the People & the 7th Amendmentthe 7th Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees us all rights established through common law.

Common law developed under the inquisitorial system in England (the Grand Jury system) from judicial decisions based on custom, tradition, precedent, and a history of jurisprudence.

The right and power of grand juries to make presentments to initiate prosecution has been well established through centuries of jurisprudence through common law, therefore this right is retained and protected in the 7th Amendment of our Constitution.

The Seventh Amendment of Our U.S. The Seventh Amendment of Our U.S. ConstitutionConstitution

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

A Note about Common Law, the 7th A Note about Common Law, the 7th Amendment, and 9/11Amendment, and 9/11

Common law jurisdiction includes criminal cases as well as civil cases.

Common law deals with property rights. Most crimes involve a “controversy which

exceeds twenty dollars”. The crimes of 9/11 certainly inflicted property

damage exceeding twenty dollars. We are well within our Constitutional rights to

pursue criminal grand jury investigation regarding the crimes of 9/11.

Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Grand Juries: The Fourth Branch of Government, “the People’s Branch”Government, “the People’s Branch”

It is significant that the grand jury is not part of any of the three branches of the U.S. government - it is a pre-constitutional institution.

In the mid-1800’s Washington attorney John H. Clarke wrote in a motion to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, “Although today the grand jury is more of a prosecutor’s panel, it is still a pre-constitutional institution,


and is still a people’s panel, not captive or relegated by the constitution to a position within any branches… And it still serves as a vehicle for effective citizen participation in government.”


Citizens often mistakenly believe that because the grand jury meets at the courthouse it is under the judiciary or because the grand jury meets with a prosecutor it is under the executive branch.

It is actually an independent institution adopted by the founders to protect the individual from prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to empower the people to initiate and pursue prosecution.


Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as grand jurors, including those sitting as federal grand jurors.

In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Court, laid down the law of the land:

Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992Court in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), 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.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "


Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.


"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906).”


“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

““Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “We the People", THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States.

Besides the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “We the People” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, “ a constitutional fixture in ‘our’ own right”. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

““Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Treasongate: Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005Government”, by CitizenSpook, August 14, 2005

We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our Constitutional Republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. We the people have the right and power under the 5th and 7th Amendments of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us.

““If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3No. 4, 1999No. 4, 1999 A "runaway" grand jury, loosely defined as a

grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor.

Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past.

Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times.

““If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - If It’s not a Runaway, it’s not a real grand jury” - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol 3No. 4, 1999No. 4, 1999 they operated as completely independent, self-

directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.

““The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906

The origin of the grand jury has given rise to much discussion among legal scholars. Numerous and widely differing conclusions have been offered.

Some have claimed to find traces of the institution among the Athenians. But if such an institution ever existed in Athens it had become extinct before the existence of Britain became known to the Mediterranean Countries.

““The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History and Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906Development” - George J. Edwards, 1906

Athenian history does mention practices similar to the Norman’s tradition of trial by a large number of jurors, however there is nothing in Athenian history that mentions an accusatory body of citizens.

Some writers claim the institution has an Anglo-Saxon origin, others urge that juries were unknown to the Anglo-Saxons and were introduced by the Normans after their Conquest of England in 1066.

The Magna Carta is the first major historical document enumerating an accusatory body of the people.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution King John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother

Richard I. He lacked his brother’s military prowess and he spent much of his reign attempting to recover lost English possessions in France. To finance his military campaigns, he resorted to harsh taxation of his subjects, which provoked growing unrest.

The Battle of Bouvines in July 1214 marked the end of English hopes of regaining Normandy. Opposition to King John intensified, and he was no longer able to resist the barons’ demand that their liberties be confirmed.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution Abuses by King John caused a revolt by barons

who forced him to sign and enact this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.

On June 10, 1215, the barons took London by force with their “militias” and forced King John to either sign the document or loose his head at the River Thames. In return the barons renewed their oaths of “fealty”, or allegiance, to the king.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution The constitutional importance of Magna Carta lies

in the fact that it placed limits upon the absolute power of the King and made him subject to the law.

The most famous of its sixty-three clauses said that no free man could be imprisoned, outlawed, or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his peers, and that justice could not be sold, delayed or denied.

It also contained clauses relating to the treatment of heirs and widows and to the payment of debts.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution It provided for uniform measures of wine, ale,

corn and cloth throughout the realm. It confirmed the liberties of the Church. It sought to regulate the conduct of all local

officials such as sheriffs, bailiffs, and constables, and to ensure that they knew and observed the law.

The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First The Magna Carta, Article 61: The First Accusatory Body of the PeopleAccusatory Body of the People

The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document.

This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and over-rule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed.


This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, which was commonly done, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

In English law, distraint or distress, is a remedy for non-payment of rent. It involves the seizure of goods belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell them for the payment of the rent.


Using the practice of distraint as the founding principle of the Magna Carta is of significant importance. The barons’ asserted their right to seize the king’s possessions and overrule the king in the event that the king would not make redress of grievances to the people.

This set the precedent that the king as a ruler is a mere tenant, and that the king owed “payment” to the people in the form of redress of grievances in return for the people allowing him to rule. If redress is not made, the people have the right to seize his possessions as payment.


Up until this time, the right of the monarch to rule was considered absolute and unconditional. Now, the barons asserted that the king’s ruling authority was not an inherent right but rather a privilege granted by the people, that could be revoked by the people, and furthermore a privilege that required payment to the people in the form of redress of grievances.

If payment was not made, the people had the right to “evict” the king from his ruling position as well as seize all the king’s possessions in lieu of payment of redress of grievances.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution The Magna Carta reversed the tyrannical principle

that the power to rule is an in-alienable right of the elite and that the liberties and rights of the people are granted by the ruling elite and can be taken from the people.

The Magna Carta, the precursor of The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitutionour Constitution The proper principle was established that it is We

the people who are the landlords and owners of the governmental positions of authority, the We the people grant the privilege of authority to the tenants of these government positions, this privilege can be revoked for non-payment of redress of grievance, our tenants can be evicted from their positions, payment seized by confiscation of our tenants’ material possessions, and most importantly it is the liberties and rights of the people that are inherent and in-alienable.


“SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS FOR GOD, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:”


“The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress.”


“If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible,


with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”

A Side Note: The Invisible Government A Side Note: The Invisible Government SpeaksSpeaks

King John had been forced to agree to the Magna Carta, and he immediately attempted to have it annulled by the Pope, who issued a papal bull saying that it was ‘as unjust and unlawful as it is base and shameful’.

Pope Innocent III annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear." He rejected any call for rights, saying it impaired King John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the king and released John from his oath to obey it.

Civil War EnsuesCivil War Ensues

King John had no intention to honour Magna Carta, as it was sealed under extortion by force, and clause 61 essentially neutered his power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the “First Barons’ War”.

““Grand Juries are a Second Grand Juries are a Second Amendment Issue” - Michael BadnarikAmendment Issue” - Michael Badnarik The only reason the barons were able to assert and

enforce their rights was because they were armed and the king had squandered his army on imperialistic and unsuccessful war campaigns.

The only reason we haven’t had all our rights taken away is because we have the right to bear arms.

We have the power to exercise and enforce our rights only as long as we can defend ourselves.

““Grand Juries are a Second Grand Juries are a Second Amendment Issue” - Michael BadnarikAmendment Issue” - Michael Badnarik Historically, one of the first things that tyrannical

dictators have done as soon as they gain power is to disarm the people. Once the populace is disarmed, these tyrants can easily take away people’s rights & liberties, install a police state, and begin the process of genocide.

The second amendment was mainly put in place to protect the people from abusive and tyrannical government taking away not only our rights and liberties but our very lives as well.

Self-defense from common street criminals is secondary to this principle.

Development of the Grand Jury Development of the Grand Jury from George J. Edwards, “The Grand Jury”, 1906from George J. Edwards, “The Grand Jury”, 1906

In England during the late 1200’s & early 1300’s,the court & the sheriffs established the practice of impaneling accusing bodies known as inquests or juries.

For every group of 100 people, 4-16 people were summoned by the court bailiffs to be accusers and present offences occurring within that hundred.


This practice was established because the king felt there was not a sufficient constabulary and more surveillance was needed over the population.

The king felt there were too many people and too few sheriffs & deputies to monitor the population, so the people were conscripted to be snitches.


These inquest juries of the “100’s” were impaneled to be an arm of the central government, acting as a public prosecutor for the purpose of ferreting out crime.

The members of the inquest were at all times bound to inform the court either singly or collectively their reasons for arriving at their verdict and the evidence upon which it was based.


These inquest juries reported to the court evidence of crimes based on personal knowledge. The court had the power to interrogate the inquest juries concerning their knowledge and as to how they arrived at their presentments.

These inquest juries were conscripted “tattlers”. If offences were not reported, the jurors would be heavily penalized.

The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368

Due to increasing population over time, the inquest juries of the “100’s” became impractical.

In 1368, during the reign of Edward III, the sheriffs began to expand the proceedings of the inquest juries to investigate and present offences for the entire county at large.

The number of jurors for each county inquest was increased to 24.

“The Grand Jury: Its Origin, History, and Development”- George J. Edwards, 1906

FOR MORE INFO...

The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368

This body received the name ‘le graunde inquest,’ which means “the grand inquisition.”

This is the first official reference of the “grand jury.”


FOR MORE INFO...

The Grand Jury starts to gain The Grand Jury starts to gain independenceindependence When the grand inquest was established to

investigate and present for the entire county, the jurors’ personal knowledge of the facts in most cases became more limited.

Hence, the practice of juror interrogation and requiring the grand inquest to divulge to the court their knowledge and reasons upon which their presentment was based began to fall into disuse.


FOR MORE INFO...

The beginning of Grand Juries’ The beginning of Grand Juries’ secrecysecrecy Because the grand inquests presented crimes for

the entire county, the monarchy became more concerned that the actions of the grande inquests might become known to the accused and therefore would allow for the defendants’ escape.

The inquests were then sworn under oath to keep their proceedings secret.


FOR MORE INFO...

The Grand Juror’s OathThe Grand Juror’s Oath

"that they will lawful presentment make of such chapters as shall be delivered to them in writing and in this they will not fail for any love, hatred, fear, reward, or promise, and that they will conceal the secrets, so help them God and the Saints."


FOR MORE INFO...

Development of the Grand Jury Development of the Grand Jury

With the arrival of the grand inquest to inquire and present for the county at large, combined with the disappearance of the accusing bodies of the hundreds, we practically complete what may be termed the period of formation in the development of the grand jury.


FOR MORE INFO...

The independence of the Grand Jury The independence of the Grand Jury becomes establishedbecomes established

It was in this period that the independence of the grand jury became established. Grand juries were no longer required to make known to the court the evidence upon which they acted nor the reasons for their conclusions.

They met in secret and were sworn to keep their proceedings secret by an oath which contained no reservation in favor of the government.


FOR MORE INFO...


The three centuries that followed documents grand juries’ freedom of action from all restraint by the court.

The independence which the institution had attained would be put to severe tests.


FOR MORE INFO...


However, since grand juries were protected by the cloak of secrecy and free from the control of the court concerning their findings, they successfully thwarted the unjust designs of the corrupt monarchical government.


FOR MORE INFO...


By the 1600’s, grand juries were strongly asserting their independence and began functioning as the people’s shield from the crown’s abusive prosecution against political dissidents.

It was in the reign of Charles the Second that we find the two most celebrated instances of the fearless action of the grand jury in defending the liberty of the individual, although subjected to the strongest possible pressure from the crown.

The Case of Stephen College, a religious The Case of Stephen College, a religious and political dissidentand political dissident

In 1681, during the reign of Charles II, a bill of indictment for high treason was submitted to a grand jury of the City of London against Stephen College, a Protestant joiner.

Breaking protocol, Lord Chief Justice North compelled the grand jury to hear the evidence in open court.

Concerning the witnesses who testified it was said, "It is certainly true that never men swore more firmly in court than they did."


The grand jury then demanded that the witnesses be sent to them that they might examine them privately. After considering the matter for several hours the grand jury ignored the bill.

Upon being asked by the Lord Chief Justice to give a reason for this verdict, they replied that they had given their verdict according to their consciences and would stand by it.

The jurors exercised their right of secrecy of deliberations and refused to be interrogated by the court concerning their findings.


The foreman of this grand jury, Mr. Wilmore, was afterwards apprehended upon a false charge, examined before the Council, sent to the tower, and afterward forced to flee beyond the seas.

The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a religious & political dissidentShaftesbury, a religious & political dissident

During the mid 1600’s, Anthony Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, was a member of Parliament and supported a strong Parliament as well as religious tolerance.

He became suspicious of the king's efforts to improve the position of Roman Catholics.

Cooper opposed the king and sided with the Parliamentarians in the English Civil Wars of the mid 1600’s.


In 1681, the same year as the College case, an attempt was made to indict Cooper for high treason.

As in College's case, the grand jury desired to hear the evidence in private, as was standard procedure, but the king's counsel insisted that the evidence be heard in open court and Lord Chief Justice Pemberton assented.


Just as in the Stephen College case, after hearing the evidence in open court the grand jury desired that they might examine the witnesses privately in their chamber and the court granted the request.

After again hearing the witnesses and considering their verdict they returned the bill "ignoramus," upon which "the people fell a hollowing and a shouting.”

King Charles unsuccessfully tries to King Charles unsuccessfully tries to retaliate retaliate Because of the failure of the king to coerce grand

juries to his oppressive purpose, the king's officials sought a method whereby ‘justice’ might be served with results more agreeable to their royal master.

A statute was enacted empowering judges and justices to “reform” grand jury panels by taking out the names of “improper” persons and putting in others according to their discretion.

The sheriff was then to be required to return the panel as reformed by the court.

King Charles unsuccessfully tries to King Charles unsuccessfully tries to retaliateretaliate The crowns’ excuse for this statute was an

alleged abuse of power by the sheriffs regarding the selection and returning of grand jurors.

They accused the sheriffs of packing the panels with those who would carry out any alleged nefarious designs of the sheriffs.

King Charles unsuccessfully tries to King Charles unsuccessfully tries to retaliate retaliate Through this statute, Sir Robert Sawyer, the

attorney general, sought to employ to carry out the wishes of the crown.

The Court of Sessions endeavored to compel the sheriffs to return the panels as they directed, but the sheriffs refused.


Grand Juries’ rule of secrecy allowed them to function out of the sight of the King's prosecutors or other meddlers.

It was their secrecy that provided the grand juries with their greatest power as an independent populist body, equipped with oversight power on the government.

They were a group of people who stood as a check on government, often in direct opposition to the desires of those in power.

Grand Juries are Brought to AmericaGrand Juries are Brought to America

When the settlement of America was begun by Englishmen, they brought with them all the civil rights which they enjoyed in their native land, and with them came the grand jury.

The Grand Juries became one of the fundamental foundations of common law in the American colonies and is the oldest institution in America’s criminal justice system.

Grand Juries quickly became vehicles for popular anti-monarchical ideology for the English colonists in America.

Grand Juries gain more strength and Grand Juries gain more strength and independenceindependence In the early American experience, the grand jury

became more a part of local government than it had ever been in England.

A grand jury in Virginia in 1662 would meet two times a year "to levy taxes and oversee spending, supervise public works, appoint local officials, and consider criminal accusations.”

Connecticut grand juries were elected and were levying taxes and conducting local government work by the middle of the 1700s.

Grand Juries gain more strength and Grand Juries gain more strength and independenceindependence In many colonies, grand jurors gathered "from all

the several Parts of the County to represent the State.”

Pre-revolutionary writers similarly spoke of grand juries as representative bodies.

The New York Weekly Journal stated in 1734: "Does not the grand jury (tho' chose by the Sheriff) represent the county?” In a manner of speaking, yes: grand jurymen represented not a group of constituents, but local knowledge.”

Grand Juries gain more strength and Grand Juries gain more strength and independenceindependence The grand jury was the initiator of prosecutions,

acting "in several of the colonies as spokesmen for the people . . . and [as] vehicles for complaints against officialdom."

in America, the grand jury originally began as a defense against the monarchy, and became much more independent than the English grand jury of the 1600s.

American grand juries initiated prosecutions against corrupt agents of the British government, often in response to complaints from individuals.

Grand Juries’ crucial role in the Grand Juries’ crucial role in the American RevolutionAmerican Revolution In pre-Revolutionary America, grand juries took

on a life of their own. The grand jury that the drafters of the Bill of

Rights knew was much more powerful than any known in England.

The actions of grand juries figured prominently in the beginnings of the Revolution.

Grand Juries’ crucial role in the Grand Juries’ crucial role in the American RevolutionAmerican Revolution In 1765, a Boston grand jury refused to indict

Colonists who had led riots against the Stamp Act. A Philadelphia Grand Jury condemned the use of

the tea tax to compensate British officials, encouraged a rejection of all British goods, and called for organization with other colonies to demand redress of grievances.

Grand Juries’ crucial role in the Grand Juries’ crucial role in the American RevolutionAmerican Revolution A Boston Grand Jury in 1769 indicted British

soldiers for alleged crimes of breaking and entering private homes of citizens.

Grand Juries refused to indict certain colonists who had been charged by the British authorities for inciting desertion and other alleged crimes against the king.

Grand Juries indicted for treason anyone who joined or colluded with the British army.

Grand Juries’ crucial role in the Grand Juries’ crucial role in the American RevolutionAmerican Revolution Grand juries functioned as patriotic platforms

and propaganda machines, constantly condemning the British government and encouraging individuals to support the effort of independence.

In some cases, "the calls to arms were sounded by the grand jurors themselves; in others, the sparks came from patriotic oratory by the presiding judges in their charges to the grand jury.”

Grand Juries’ crucial role in the Grand Juries’ crucial role in the American RevolutionAmerican Revolution The public proclamations of these grand juries

were drastically different from anything we know today.

They were often circulated in local and national newspapers in an effort to "fuel the revolutionary fire."

Grand Juries in early America protect Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason Aaron Burr was targeted by the federal

government in the early 1800’s. After a bizarre political career, Burr was disliked

by both the Federalists and Republicans. The U.S. Attorney for Kentucky, a staunch

Federalist aligned with President Jefferson, moved that a grand jury be summoned to consider charges against Burr for his alleged attempt to involve the United States in a war with Spain.

Grand Juries in early America protect Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron Burr from false charges of treasonAaron Burr from false charges of treason

This grand jury from Republican-dominated Kentucky returned an "ignoramus bill," declining to indict Burr on the evidence.

Going even further, the grand jury issued a written declaration in its presentment directed to the court in which they declared that Burr failed to exhibit "any design inimical to the peace and well-being of the country."


A second grand jury proceeding convened in Mississippi Territory to consider similar treason charges against Burr relating to his expedition down the Mississippi River.

It was alleged that Burr intended to capture New Orleans, a city of nine thousand people protected by a thousand United States soldiers, using sixty unarmed men in ten boats.


The Mississippi grand jury not only declined to indict Burr in the affair, but returned presentments which clearly labeled the government's attempted charges as a vindictive prosecution.

The presentment concluded that "Aaron Burr has not been guilty of any crime or misdemeanor against the laws of the United States or of this Territory."

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption Furthermore, the grand jury declared that the

arrests of Burr and his co-travelers had been made “without warrant, and . . . without other lawful authority,” and represented a “grievance destructive of personal liberty.”

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption In resounding condemnation, the grand jury

pronounced its regret that “the enemies of our glorious Constitution” had rejoiced at the attempted persecution of Aaron Burr and expressed the opinion that such prosecutorial misconduct “must sap the vitals of our political existence, and crumble this glorious fabric in the dust.”

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The grand jury's presentment power was used

not only to accuse wrongdoers when government prosecutors refused to do so, but to publicly declare the innocence of a targeted suspect in the very face of opposition by the prosecution.

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The Mississippi grand jury was a "runaway" by

today's standards. Yet a grand jury acting in such way offered

precisely the type of protection envisioned by the Framers when they included the institution in the Bill of Rights as a check on the power of the government.

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The Mississippi grand jury's presentment

included a bold attack on the prosecution itself — an occurrence scarcely imaginable today.

It was the grand jury's power over its presentments, rather than its indictments, that made it so fearsome.

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption The effectiveness of early American grand juries

in ferreting out the shortcomings of public officials “can be gauged from the long lists of grand jury presentments” of early America.

"Very little escaped the attention of the grand jurymen, “ which even took notice of the failures of town councils to provide stocks or a whipping post to punish offenders.”

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption Throughout the 19th century, grand juries often

acted on their own initiative in the face of direct opposition from a district attorney.

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption An independently acting grand jury probed and

"toppled the notorious Boss Tweed and his cronies" in New York City in 1872.

Without the prosecutor's assistance, the Tweed grand jury independently carried out its own investigation in a district that had otherwise been very loyal to Tweed.

The media played a crucial role in this case. The NYT highly publicized the case despite being offered $5 million to keep quiet.

Grand Juries in early America Grand Juries in early America expose political corruptionexpose political corruption In 1902, a Minneapolis grand jury on its own

initiative hired private detectives and collected enough evidence to indict the mayor and force the police chief to resign.

This grand jury virtually governed the city until a new administration could be hired.

In 1907 in San Francisco, a grand jury indicted the mayor and replaced him.

The Imperative Role of Private The Imperative Role of Private ProsecutionProsecution In England every private person had the same

rights as the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution.

Once a case had been presented to the grand jury, it was entirely out of the prosecutor's hands.

In the early days of our Republic "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand jury with a complaint.

The Imperative Role of Private The Imperative Role of Private ProsecutionProsecution Until 1853 there was nowhere general organized

control of Federal prosecution. The Department of Justice was not created until June

22, 1870. At the time the only authority the Justice Department had was to investigate postal crimes and compile crime statistics.

Even in 1897 private citizens could still have arrest warrants issued.

At that time grand jurors themselves were the only ones competent to ascertain who was the prosecutor.

The Imperative Role of Private The Imperative Role of Private ProsecutionProsecution The rise of the "public prosecutor," both at the

federal and state levels, has drastically altered grand jury function.

Of 448 cases examined in 1838, there were 80 "no bills."

In 1976 there were 23,000 federal indictments returned but only 123 no bills.

deborah's presentation on grand juries

Documents