2 0 obj An act punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months is a misdemeanor, which can be tried without indictment, even though the punishment exceeds that specified in the statutory definition of petty offenses.24FootnoteDuke v. United States, 301 U.S. 492 (1937). Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice. See id.


, the grand jury may not force a witness to answer questions in violation of that constitutional guarantee. The provision read: “That in all Cases Capital or Criminal there shall be a grand Inquest who shall first present the offence. <> There being no constitutional requirement that an indictment be presented by a grand jury in a body, an indictment delivered by the foreman in the absence of other grand jurors is valid.28FootnoteBreese v. United States, 226 U.S. 1 (1912).

28 U.S.C. at 584, 609. Judicial supervision is properly exercised in such cases to prevent the wrong before it occurs.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 (1974). 1970), and Report of the January 1970 Grand Jury (Black Panther Shooting) (N.D. Ill., released May 15, 1970). Justices Stewart and Blackmun reserved judgment. 1970), and Report of the January 1970 Grand Jury (Black Panther Shooting) (N.D. Ill., released May 15, 1970). 4 This provision applies only in federal courts and is not applicable to the states, either as an element of due process or as a direct command of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the reports function of the grand jury, see In re Grand Jury January, 1969, 315 F. Supp.

5 Witnesses are not entitled to have counsel present in the room. Justices Stewart and Blackmun reserved judgment. . See Fed. A 5–4 majority favored overruling O’Callahan: Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court was joined by Justices White, Powell, O’Connor, and Scalia. 29 Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887). endstream 14 The grand jury “is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime.” Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 281 (1919). 2019-09-26T20:16:16-07:00 Chief Justice Burger and Justices White, Powell, and Rehnquist took the position that no Miranda warning was required because there was no police custodial interrogation and that in any event commission of perjury was not excusable on the basis of lack of any warning. Dissenting Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, thought the service connection rule justified by the language of the Fifth Amendment’s exception, based on the nature of cases (those “arising in the land or naval forces”) rather than the status of defendants. is to return criminal indictments, but the juries serve a considerably broader series of purposes as well. at 25 (Chief Justice Burger dissenting).

28 See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960), which held that a variation between pleading and proof deprived petitioner of his right to be tried only upon charges presented in the indictment. § 333. . . The right to counsel refers to the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defense, even if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. R. Crim. . Operating in secret, under the direction but not control of a prosecutor, not bound by many evidentiary and constitutional restrictions, such juries may examine witnesses in the absence of their counsel and without informing them of the object of the investigation or the place of the witnesses in it.5 The exclusionary rule is inapplicable in grand jury proceedings, with the result that a witness called before a grand jury may be questioned on the basis of knowledge obtained through the use of illegally seized evidence.6 In thus allowing the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court nonetheless restated the principle that, although free of many rules of evidence that bind trial courts, grand juries are not unrestrained by constitutional consideration.7 A witness called before a grand jury is not entitled to be informed that he may be indicted for the offense under inquiry8 and the commission of perjury by a witness before the grand jury is punishable, irrespective of the nature of the warning given him when he appears and regardless of the fact that he may already be a putative defendant when he is called.9. Wong was assumed on appeal not to have understood the warnings given her and the opinion proceeds on the premise that absence of warnings altogether does not preclude a perjury prosecution. <> . .
662 (D. Md. 101 (1931). 33 Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U.S. 109, 114 (1895). endobj <>stream endobj 18 0 obj Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 707–08 (1972). Principal among these is the investigative function, which is served through the fact that grand juries may summon witnesses by process and compel testimony and the production of evidence generally. Cf. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906). . . The history of the grand jury is rooted in the common and civil law, extending back to Athens, pre-Norman England, and the Assize of Clarendon promulgated by Henry II.1 The right seems to have been first mentioned in the colonies in the Charter of Liberties and Privileges of 1683, which was passed by the first assembly permitted to be elected in the colony of New York.2 Included from the first in Madison’s introduced draft of the Bill of Rights, the provision elicited no recorded debate and no opposition. 5 0 obj

Thus, where a defendant failed to assert his right to a non-defective grand jury indictment, appellate review of the matter would limited to a “plain error” analysis. Imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary, with or without hard labor,15FootnoteMackin v. United States, 117 U.S. 348, 352 (1886).

21 Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 237 (1896). .