I actually felt a little odd about it. However, grand jury service is quite a different matter than criminal jury. I didn't feel bad about shirking this duty, James. In Massachusetts, it's three friggin' months of service, two weeks per month. Simply impossible for me.

 

I am lucky I guess, having lived as a foreigner for the last 10 years, there is no that I can get called for jury service ever

 

As a "contract consultant," I'd think you'd want to do it.

Anyway, grand jury is a waste of time (IMO). Criminal, well, that's different.

As an engineer, I found court to be horribly inefficient. However, deciding guilt or innocence is an important responsibility that I can take seriously.

 

If I was eligible I would do it. We don't have the grand jury in the UK, only the criminal one, so yes, if called up I would consider it my duty to do it. But having worked with lawyers so much, I don't know that I would be a good person for them to have on the jury given the fact that I don't believe a word that comes out of most of their mouths !!!!!

 

Really, no grand jury anymore? Interesting... Of course, our grand jury was derived from yours! Personally, I think the system could/should be changed.

I hear you on your comment. Perhaps you're right!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chazmo
[B]Really, no grand jury anymore?

 

According to the superior court judge who introduced us yesterday, the grand jury was a tool of the king of England a long time ago.

When you hear such-and-such county versus defendant, or such-and-such state versus defendant, it's because the accusatory "body" is not the prosecutor but, rather, the grand jury which represents the region.

If you're interested, I can tell you more.

 

I would actually be interested to know what the function of the grand jury is ..... I am pretty sure that people in the UK are prosecuted by the "crown" rather than by a grand jury .... all of the law that I am studying at the moment is civil law not criminal law .... I shall have to go check this out ....

 

The grand jury's purpose is investigative and accusatory.

For felonies (not all, I think, but perhaps anything getting into Superior court), the district attorneys must bring their cases to a grand jury to attain an "indictment." The grand jury looks at the case, in SECRET, and decides whether the DA can continue and ultimately charge a defendant and take a case to court.

So, the grand jury hears all kinds of cases during its service. It only hears the prosecution's cases, no defendants. In fact, a defendant may have no idea that he's being investigated by a grand jury. Another interesting fact is that heresay evidence is permitted for a grand jury. In fact, there's no judge present when the jury hears a case.

In my opinion, it seems like a formality. I don't see why the DA needs oversight by a jury. Mostly, the decision to carry forward with a case should be a legal question which can be decided by the prosecutor (again, my opinion).

 

I guess it is just there as a safety net sort of thing then ..... making sure that the DA doesn't drop cases that he should prosecute, and making sure that he doesn't prosecute cases that have no chance of success ....