Editing Grand jury (section)

== Present-day use ==

===United States===
{{Main|Grand juries in the United States}}

At the time of the founding of the United States, a grand jury indictment was required for almost all prosecutions, and juries rendered the final verdict of almost all criminal and civil cases.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thomas |first=Suja A. |title=The missing American jury: restoring the fundamental constitutional role of the criminal, civil, and grand juries |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-05565-0 |location=New York, NY |pages=1–2}}</ref> The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States]] reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury{{nbsp}}..."

[[File:Grand jury at Arcadia Hotel fire (LOC).jpg|thumb|A grand jury investigating the [[Arcadia Hotel fire]] in Boston, Massachusetts in 1913]]
In the early decades of the United States, grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a 23-person grand jury, 12 people would constitute a bare majority).<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=History of the Grand Jury {{!}} Superior Court of California {{!}} County of Glenn |url=https://www.glenn.courts.ca.gov/divisions/grand-jury/history-grand-jury |access-date=2024-05-31 |website=www.glenn.courts.ca.gov}}</ref> Most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found that there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise essentially the same authority as a state attorney general has, that is, a [[private attorney general|general power of attorney]] to represent the state in the case.<ref name=":0" />

The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.<ref name="gje">{{cite book |last=Edwards |first=George John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e5cFAAAAMAAJ |title=The Grand Jury: Considered from an Historical, Political and Legal Standpoint, and the Law and Practice Relating Thereto |publisher=G.T. Bisel |year=1906 |isbn=978-0-404-09113-2 |editor-last=Ward |editor-first=Richard H. |location=University of Michigan |access-date=22 May 2011}}</ref> The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Roots |first=Roger |date=1999–2000 |title=If It's Not a Runaway, It's Not a Real Grand Jury |url=http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm |url-status=dead |journal=Creighton Law Review |volume=33 |issue=4 |page=821 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040502021544/http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm |archive-date=2 May 2004}}</ref>

In 1974, the second Watergate grand jury indicted seven White House aides,<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Watkins |first1=Eli |last2=Kaufman |first2=Ellie |date=2018-10-31 |title=National Archives releases draft indictment of Nixon amid Mueller probe {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics/richard-nixon-watergate-national-archives-mueller/index.html |access-date=2024-06-03 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> including former Attorney General [[John N. Mitchell|John Mitchell]], and named President Nixon as a "secret, un-indicted, co-conspirator". Despite evading [[impeachment]] by resigning from office, Nixon was still required to testify before a grand jury.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |date=November 10, 2011 |title=Newly Released Testimony Is Vintage Nixon |url=https://www.npr.org/2011/11/10/142218777/newly-released-testimony-is-vintage-nixon |work=NPR}}</ref> In 1998, [[Bill Clinton|President Bill Clinton]] became the first sitting president required to testify before a grand jury as the subject of an investigation by the [[United States Office of the Independent Counsel|Office of Independent Counsel]].<ref>{{cite web |title=1998, August 17: Clinton testifies before grand jury |url=http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-testifies-before-grand-jury |access-date=23 September 2018 |website=History.com |series=This Day in History|date=16 November 2009 }}</ref>

While all states have provisions for grand juries as of 2003,<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Brenner |first1=Susan |last2=Shaw |first2=Lori |year=2003 |title=State Grand Juries |url=http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/stateg.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160703121353/http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/stateg.htm |archive-date=3 July 2016 |access-date=2010-08-02 |publisher=[[University of Dayton]] School of Law}}</ref> today approximately half of the states employ them<ref name="abaFAQ">{{cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System |url=http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110424124519/http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/ |archive-date=2011-04-24 |access-date=2011-05-11 |website=[[American Bar Association]]}}</ref> and 22 states have provision to prevent the abolition of grand juries by legislatures or courts as of 2003.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Brenner |first1=Susan |last2=Shaw |first2=Lori |year=2003 |title=Power to abolish Grand Jury |url=http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070217122422/http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm |archive-date=2007-02-17 |access-date=2007-03-29 |publisher=[[University of Dayton]] School of Law}}</ref> Six states (Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, and Kansas) allow citizens to circulate a petition in order to impanel a grand jury.<ref>{{cite web |title=Laws governing citizen grand juries in Oklahoma |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_citizen_grand_juries_in_Oklahoma |website=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

An American federal grand jury has from 16 to 23 jurors, with twelve votes usually required to return an indictment. All grand jury proceedings are conducted behind closed doors, without a presiding judge. The prosecutors are tasked with arranging for the appearance of witnesses, as well as drafting the order in which they are called, and take part in the questioning of witnesses.<ref name="CRS">{{cite web |date=January 10, 2019 |title=Federal Grand Jury Secrecy: Legal Principles and Implications for Congressional Oversight |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329110657/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf |archive-date=2019-03-29 |access-date=January 15, 2020 |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]}}</ref> The targets of the grand jury or their lawyers have no right to appear before a grand jury unless they are invited, nor do they have a right to present exculpatory evidence.<ref name="CRS" />

===Japan===

After [[World War II]], under the influence of the [[Allies of World War II|Allies]], [[Japan]] passed the Prosecutorial Review Commission Law on July 12, 1948, which created the ''Kensatsu Shinsakai'' (or Prosecutorial Review Commission (PRC) system), analogous to the grand jury system in the United States.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fukurai |first=Hiroshi |date=August 4, 2017 |title=The Rebirth of Japan's Petit Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems: A Cross-National Analysis of Legal Consciousness and the Lay Participatory Experience in Japan and the U.S. |url=http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1699&context=cilj |journal=[[Cornell International Law Journal]] |volume=40 |issue=2}}</ref> Until 2009 the PRC's recommendations were not binding, and were only regarded as advisory.<ref name="fukurai-lay-over">{{cite journal |last1=Fukurai |first1=Hiroshi |date=2011 |title=Japan's Prosecutorial Review Commissions: Lay Oversight of the Government's Discretion of Prosecution |url=http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=ealr |journal=University of Pennsylvania East Asia Law Review |pages=5–10 |access-date=2 December 2014}}</ref> A survey conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office in October 1990 showed that 68.8% of surveyed Japanese citizens were not familiar with the PRC system.<ref name="fukurai-lay-over" />{{Relevance inline|date=May 2024}} On May 21, 2009, the Japanese government introduced new legislation which would make the PRC's decisions binding. A PRC is made up of 11 randomly selected citizens, is appointed to a six-month term, and its primary purpose is examining cases prosecutors have chosen not to continue prosecuting.<ref name="Gastil-2014">{{cite journal |last1=Gastil |first1=John |last2=Fukurai |first2=Hiroshi |last3=Anderson |first3=Kent |last4=Nolan |first4=Mark |date=September 13, 2014 |title=Seeing Is Believing: The Impact of Jury Service on Attitudes Toward Legal Institutions and the Implications for International Jury Reform |url=http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jurydem/SeeingIsBelieving_20130422100444_919286.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Court Review |volume=48 |page=126 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226014327/http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jurydem/SeeingIsBelieving_20130422100444_919286.pdf |archive-date=26 February 2015 |access-date=2 December 2014}}</ref> It has therefore been perceived as a way to combat [[misfeasance]] in public officials.<ref name="Fukurai-2011">{{cite journal |last1=Fukurai |first1=Hiroshi |date=January 2011 |title=Japan's Quasi-Jury and Grand Jury Systems as Deliberative Agents of Social Change: De-Colonial Strategies and Deliberative Participatory Democracy |url=http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3801&context=cklawreview |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |volume=86 |issue=2 |page=825 |access-date=2 December 2014}}</ref> This an inverse of American grand juries, as they investigate if a case should be reinstated after being dropped by the prosecution, as opposed to if there is probable cause for changes to be laid in the first place. In this sense, a Japanese PRC functions for the benefit of the one pressing charges, as opposed to being a check on prosecutorial power.

From 1945 to 1972 [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] was under American administration. Grand jury proceedings were held in the territory from 1963 until 1972.<ref name="japancivil">{{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Matthew J. |title=Japan and Civil Jury Trials: The Convergence of Forces |last2=Fukurai |first2=Hiroshi |last3=Maruta |first3=Takashi |date=October 2015 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publications |isbn=978-1-78347-918-4 |location=Cheltenham, UK |page=134}}</ref> By an ordinance of the civil administration of the [[Ryukyu Islands]] promulgated in 1963, grand jury indictment and petit jury trial were assured for criminal defendants in the civil administration courts.<ref name="japancivil" /> This ordinance reflected the concern of the U.S. Supreme Court<ref>U.S. Supreme Court decision: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957)</ref> that U.S. civilians tried for crimes abroad under tribunals of U.S. provenance should not be shorn of the protections of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Indeed, the District Court in Washington twice held that the absence of the jury system in the civil administration courts in Okinawa invalidated criminal convictions.<ref>District (i.e. federal) court of the District of Columbia decisions: re Nicholson, H.C. 141-61, D.D.C., Nov. 19, 1963, and Ikeda v. McNamara, H.C. 416-62, D.D.C., Oct. 19, 1962</ref><ref>Vanoverbeke. Juries in the Japanese Legal System. 2015. pp [https://books.google.com/books?id=DnsGCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 105] & 106.</ref>

===Liberia===
Grand juries in Liberia were included in section 7 of article 1 of the constitution of 1847.<ref>{{cite web |title=Constitution of Liberia (1847), Section 7 |url=http://onliberia.org/con_1847_orig.htm#a17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100117084908/http://onliberia.org/con_1847_orig.htm#a17 |archive-date=2010-01-17 |website=onliberia.org}}</ref><ref>Article 1, [https://books.google.com/books?id=YK43AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3 Section 7]</ref> By article 21 of the [[Constitution of Liberia]],<ref>{{cite web |date=1984 |title=Constitution of Liberia |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/ozheflud/constitution-of-the-republic-of-libera-1984-ext-en.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624204301/https://www.clientearth.org/media/ozheflud/constitution-of-the-republic-of-libera-1984-ext-en.pdf |archive-date=2021-06-24 |via=[[ClientEarth]]}}</ref> 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime except in cases of impeachment, cases arising in the Armed Forces and petty offenses, unless upon indictment by a Grand Jury". For example, the national Port Authority's managing director was indicted by the Monteserrado County Grand Jury in July 2015, on charges of economic sabotage, theft of property and criminal conspiracy.<ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2015 |title=Liberian Grand Jury Indicts Port Director |url=http://maritime-executive.com/article/liberian-grand-jury-indicts-port-director |access-date=8 January 2016 |website=Maritime Executive}}</ref> It is one of the only remaining countries using a grand jury in this manner.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Chava |last2=Clark |first2=James |date=2023-09-27 |title=It's Time to Abolish Grand Juries Once and for All |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/abolish-grand-juries-cop-city-trump/ |access-date=2024-05-02 |work=The Nation |language=en-US |issn=0027-8378}}</ref>