Austin Citizens

1
Austin Citizens Grand Jury on
9/11 Crimes

• Citizens Grand Juries
• The Shield and the Sword of the People
• The Cornerstone of our Constitution
• The Fourth Branch of our Government, The
  Peoples Branch

2
A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,
Harvard Law Review, Vol 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

3
A Note on Grand Juries by George J. Edwards,
Harvard Law Review, Vol 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."

4
Project 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

5
Project Goals

• Restore the publics 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

6
Outline 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 1215-1600s
• 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

7
Outline of Topics

• The imperative role of private prosecution
• The decline of grand juries power starting in
  themid-1800s 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

8
Grand Juries The Cornerstone of Our Constitution

• 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.

FOR MORE INFO...

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

9
Grand Juries The Cornerstone of Our Constitution

• 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.

FOR MORE INFO...

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

10
Grand Juries The Shield of the People

• 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.

11
Grand 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.

12
Grand Jury Shield The Fifth Amendment of 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.

13
True 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.

14
Grand 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 govt corruption.
• GJs may independently investigate corruption
  apart from a state prosecutor.
• GJs may conduct proceedings in secret and can
  question witnesses and examine physical evidence.
• GJs may submit criminal charges and other
  findings according to their own knowledge and
  independent investigation. This is called a
  presentment.

15
Grand 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.

16
Grand Juries The Sword of the People the 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.

17
The Seventh Amendment of Our U.S. Constitution

• 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.

18
A Note about Common Law, the 7th Amendment, 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.

19
Grand Juries The Fourth Branch of Government,
the Peoples 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-1800s 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
  prosecutors panel, it is still a
  pre-constitutional institution,

20
Grand Juries The Fourth Branch of Government,
the Peoples Branch

• and is still a peoples 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.

21
Grand Juries The Fourth Branch of Government,
the Peoples Branch

• 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.

22
Grand Juries The Fourth Branch of Government,
the Peoples Branch

• 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

23
Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court
in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

• "'Rooted 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). ' "

24
Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court
in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

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

25
Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court
in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

• "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).

26
Justice Scalia delivers the opinion of the Court
in U.S. v. Williams, 1992

• 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 "

27
Treasongate Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of
Government, 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.

28
Treasongate Grand Juries, The Fourth Branch of
Government, 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.

29
If Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand
jury - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol
3No. 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.

30
If Its not a Runaway, its not a real grand
jury - Roger Roots, Creighton Law Review, Vol
3No. 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.

31
The Grand Jury Its Origin, History and
Development - 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.

32
The Grand Jury Its Origin, History and
Development - George J. Edwards, 1906

• Athenian history does mention practices similar
  to the Normans 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.

33
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our Constitution

• King John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother
  Richard I. He lacked his brothers 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.

34
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our 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.

35
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our 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.

36
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our 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.

37
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
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.

38
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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.

39
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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 kings 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.

40
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• Up until this time, the right of the monarch to
  rule was considered absolute and unconditional.
  Now, the barons asserted that the kings 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 kings possessions in lieu
  of payment of redress of grievances.

41
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our 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.

42
The Magna Carta, the precursor of our 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.

43
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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

44
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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.

45
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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,

46
The Magna Carta, Article 61 The First Accusatory
Body of the People

• 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.

47
A Side Note The Invisible Government Speaks

• 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.

48
Civil 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.

49
Grand Juries are a Second Amendment 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 havent 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.

50
Grand Juries are a Second Amendment 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 peoples 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.

51
Development of the Grand Jury from George J.
Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906

• In England during the late 1200s early
  1300s,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.

52
Development of the Grand Jury from George J.
Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906

• 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.

53
Development of the Grand Jury from George J.
Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906

• These inquest juries of the 100s 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.

54
Development of the Grand Jury from George J.
Edwards, The Grand Jury, 1906

• 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.

55
The Grand Jury Officially defined in 1368

• Due to increasing population over time, the
  inquest juries of the 100s 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.

FOR MORE INFO...

• The Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

56
The 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 Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

57
The Grand Jury starts to gain independence

• 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 Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

58
The beginning of Grand Juries secrecy

• 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 Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

59
The Grand Jurors 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...

• The Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

60
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 Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

61
The independence of the Grand Jury becomes
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 Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

62
The independence of the Grand Jury becomes
established

• 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...

• The Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

63
The independence of the Grand Jury becomes
established

• 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...

• The Grand Jury Its Origin, History, and
  Development-
• George J. Edwards, 1906

64
The independence of the Grand Jury becomes
established

• By the 1600s, grand juries were strongly
  asserting their independence and began
  functioning as the peoples shield from the
  crowns 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.

65
The Case of Stephen College, a religious and
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."

66
The Case of Stephen College, a religious and
political dissident

• 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.

67
The Case of Stephen College, a religious and
political dissident

• 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.

68
The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of
Shaftesbury, a religious political dissident

• During the mid 1600s, 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 1600s.

69
The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of
Shaftesbury, a religious political dissident

• 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.

70
The Case of Anthony Cooper, the Earl of
Shaftesbury, a religious political dissident

• 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.

71
King Charles unsuccessfully tries to 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.

72
King Charles unsuccessfully tries to retaliate

• 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.

73
King Charles unsuccessfully tries to 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.

74
The independence of the Grand Jury becomes
established

• 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.

75
Grand 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
  Americas criminal justice system.
• Grand Juries quickly became vehicles for popular
  anti-monarchical ideology for the English
  colonists in America.

76
Grand Juries gain more strength and independence

• 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.

77
Grand Juries gain more strength and independence

• 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.

78
Grand Juries gain more strength and independence

• 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.

79
Grand Juries crucial role in the American
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.

80
Grand Juries crucial role in the American
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
  ofthe 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.

81
Grand Juries crucial role in the American
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.

82
Grand Juries crucial role in the American
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.

83
Grand Juries crucial role in the American
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."

84
Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron Burr
from false charges of treason

• Aaron Burr was targeted by the federal government
  in the early 1800s.
• 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.

85
Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron 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."

86
Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron Burr
from false charges of treason

• 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.

87
Grand Juries in early America protect Aaron Burr
from false charges of treason

• 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."

88
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

89
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

90
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

91
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

92
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

93
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

94
Grand Juries in early America expose political
corruption

• Throughout the 19th century, grand juries often
  acted on their own initiative in the face of
  direct opposition from a district attorney.

95
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

96
Grand Juries in early America expose 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.

97
The Imperative Role of Private Prosecution

• 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.

98
The Imperative Role of Private Prosecution

• 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.

99
The Imperative Role of Private Prosecution

• 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.