The American judicial system is centered around the jury, throughout all steps in the legal process. A look at the two kinds of juries, what they do and how they differ.
The role of the jury is one of great importance in the U.S. legal system. The jury not only decides whether to charge a person with a crime, but also decides their guilt or innocence. While both jury groups examine the relevant evidence of a case, each has their own separate and distinct purpose within the legal system. Grand juries' purpose is to decide whether to indict (bring up formal charges) a suspect. Trial juries' sole purpose is to determine whether the defendant should be acquitted of the charges against him/her.
The Basics of a Grand Jury
The grand jury is composed of a group of people chosen at random, varying in size from sixteen to twenty-three (depending on each state's individual requirements). At the onset of a case the prosecutor presents the facts of the case to the grand jury, and they are to determine if there is enough evidence to formally indict a person ("true bill").
The grand jury is always closed to the public and no one, other than the prosecutor and witnesses know who the members of the grand jury are. They remain anonymous, even to the judge. In rare instances, the defendant will testify in front of the grand jury, but this is very rare. The defense attorney has no role in the grand jury proceedings.
A grand jury will generally serve a set term of time from a few weeks to a few months. During their service, the grand jury will deliberate on many different cases. They will be presented just enough preliminary facts and witnesses by the prosecutor in order to decide if there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial (at which point a trial jury would determine the defendant's guilt or non-guilt).
Grand juries do not need to be unanimous in their decision whether or not to indict. Majority rules in this situation for the defendant to be formally brought up on charges (the exact number of juries needed to get an indictment varies depending on each individual state).
The Basics of a Trial/Petit Jury
A trial jury, or sometimes called a petit jury, is chosen at random in similar fashion to the grand jury. However, a petit jury consists of a smaller group if jurors, usually only six to twelve (depending on each state's individual requirements). The petit jury hears the full case in order to determine whether to acquit or convict the defendant.
In most instances, the petit jury can be seen by all the participants during the course of the trial, as they sit in the jury box while the case for both sides is being presented. In addition, as long as the case is not held in a closed court, any members of the public have the right to sit in on the case and observe the trial and the jury. There is little in the way of anonymity in a petit jury.
A petit jury participates in the full duration of only one case during their service. As opposed to the grand jury, the trial jury hears from more witnesses, views more evidence and hears more expert testimony. Simply put, the petit jury becomes a vital part of the case, as they are the ones who determine the outcome of the trial. In order to convict the defendant, the petit jury must unanimously agree. There cannot be any differences in opinion, otherwise a hung jury ensues and the judge has the option of declaring either a mistrial or a hung jury.
Both juries have different responsibilities during their time of service. Understanding the differences can be an important first step in understanding the workings of the U.S. legal system.
The copyright of the article Grand Jury Vs. Trial Jury in Law, Crime & Justice is owned by Lisa Rufle. Permission to republish Grand Jury Vs. Trial Jury in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
You in USA have the prosecution by indictment (The district attorney may
decide to proceed by the Grand Jury Indictment), or prosecution by
information. In Italy we have only one prosecution: the State Attorney,
after receiving The "Notitia Criminis", say a complaint (from a
Criminal Investigation Officer), or a denouncement (from a private citizen,
or a non-Investigation Officer) or a Medical Report, or any news about a
possible crime, decides to start the "preliminary investigation"
phase or not. At the end of this period (usually six months) he will turn
to a judge, 1) the GUP (the judge of the preliminary hearing) if he demands
the incrimination, or the GIP (the judge of the preliminary investigation)
if he ask for a dismissal. Thus here the public prosecutor decides to start
or not the prosecution phase. It is true that our Constitution declares
(art. 112) that he is obliged to start the criminal action, but is he who
decides whether or not there is a crime in the facts reported by a citizen
(often through a Lawyer). This, particularly in the case of denouncement
from citizens, results in the absolute power of the public prosecutor: he
can start or not he investigation phase without any control. In other
words many actions filed by citizens may be neglected from the state
attorney. My question now is: in your criminal system, do you have
or not some form of control over the district attorney, to verify whether
or not he neglects starting the prosecution ( e.g. in case of crime),
whether by indictment or by information?
Apr 20, 2009 10:25 AM
Guest :
You in USA have the prosecution by indictment (The district attorney may
decide to proceed by the Grand Jury Indictment), or prosecution by
information. In Italy we have only one prosecution: the State Attorney,
after receiving The "Notitia Criminis", say a complaint (from a
Criminal Investigation Officer), or a denouncement (from a private citizen,
or a non-Investigation Officer) or a Medical Report, or any news about a
possible crime, decides to start the "preliminary investigation"
phase or not. At the end of this period (usually six months) he will turn
to a judge, 1) the GUP (the judge of the preliminary hearing) if he demands
the incrimination, or the GIP (the judge of the preliminary investigation)
if he ask for a dismissal. Thus here the public prosecutor decides to start
or not the prosecution phase. It is true that our Constitution declares
(art. 112) that he is obliged to start the criminal action, but is he who
decides whether or not there is a crime in the facts reported by a citizen
(often through a Lawyer). This, particularly in the case of denouncement
from citizens, results in the absolute power of the public prosecutor: he
can start or not he investigation phase without any control. In other
words many actions filed by citizens may be neglected from the state
attorney. My question now is: in your criminal system, do you have
or not some form of control over the district attorney, to verify whether
or not he neglects starting the prosecution ( e.g. in case of crime),
whether by indictment or by information? Thanks for any answer.
