The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a vital role in balancing the scales of justice. It requires an indictment by a grand jury for felony prosecutions. This requirement was designed to shield individuals from baseless charges and prevent the misuse of prosecutorial power. However, the current landscape reveals a worrying trend: grand juries appear to be losing their original purpose, functioning more as rubber stamps for prosecutors than as independent checks on government authority.
In this post, we will explore the historical context of the grand jury, its intended roles, and the concerning patterns that indicate a shift in power dynamics, raising essential questions about its effectiveness today.
Historical Role of the Grand Jury
The grand jury has deep roots dating back to England and has been part of American justice since the nation’s founding. This system was designed to serve as a protector against arbitrary state action and to uphold the rights of the individual.
The grand jury's crucial role involves determining whether there is enough probable cause to believe a crime has occurred. It is expected to act independently, conducting its own investigations and weighing evidence before deciding on serious charges. A notable case illustrating this function is United States v. Calandra (1974), where the court reiterated the grand jury's role as a safeguard against unfounded accusations.
Historically, the grand jury was created as a reliable institution to maintain the balance of power between citizens and the state. However, its functionality has come under scrutiny in recent years.
The Grand Jury Today: A Rubber Stamp?
Despite its original intentions, many experts argue that today’s grand juries often serve merely as formalities aligned with prosecutorial interests. Statistics reveal a stark reality: approximately 99.9% of grand jury indictments are approved. This overwhelming trend indicates that grand juries frequently endorse the claims made by prosecutors without meaningful examination.
Justice William O. Douglas, in his dissent in United States v. Dionision (1973), lamented that the grand jury has lost its role as the "guardian of the people." Instead, it often acts as a convenient tool for governmental prosecution, sacrificing the protections originally intended for defendants.

The Power of Prosecutorial Discretion & Fifth Amendment
One significant factor contributing to the decline of the grand jury's effectiveness is the expansion of prosecutorial discretion. In the United States, prosecutors enjoy vast authority in deciding which cases to pursue and how to present evidence. This broad discretion can create biases that threaten fair legal processes.
For instance, research shows that Black defendants are disproportionately indicted compared to white defendants, often due to biased interpretations of evidence. According to a 2020 study, Black individuals were 25% more likely to face charges than their white counterparts for similar offenses. Such disparities highlight how prosecutorial bias can compromise the grand jury's authentic function.
Additionally, the concept of "prosecutorial immunity" shields prosecutors from legal accountability. Even when a grand jury returns what appears to be an unjust indictment, avenues for challenging these decisions are limited. This lack of accountability only deepens the gap between grand juries and their intended role as protectors of individual rights.
Criticisms and Calls for Reform
A growing chorus of legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and reform organizations is sounding the alarm about the state of the grand jury system. They are advocating for significant changes to restore its original function as a buffer against governmental overreach.
Some practical reform ideas include:
Increased Transparency: Making grand jury proceedings more open by recording hearings or allowing defense attorneys to participate could add much-needed clarity.
Standardizing Guidelines: Creating clear criteria for what constitutes sufficient evidence for indictments would help limit prosecutorial discretion.
Such changes aim to rebalance the proceedings and empower grand jurors to deliver a more accurate reflection of justice.
A Case for Reviving the Grand Jury's Role
Despite its current shortcomings, the grand jury retains an essential place in the American legal system. Its foundational purpose of countering government power remains relevant. Strengthening the grand jury's role would improve the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system while ensuring that citizens can defend their rights against unjust state actions.
Citizens on grand juries must recognize their duty and emerge as active participants in the search for justice. By critically examining the evidence presented before them, they can contribute to a system that genuinely upholds the balance of authority between individual freedoms and governmental power.

Reflecting on the Future of the Grand Jury System
The grand jury system in the United States stands at a pivotal moment. It was originally designed as a crucial safeguard against government tyranny and a champion of individual rights, yet its contemporary form often undermines these very principles.
Addressing the erosion of the grand jury's functionality is critical. Reforms that prioritize transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to citizen oversight can rejuvenate this important institution. As we move forward, we must ensure that the grand jury embodies its core mission: protecting individuals from unchecked prosecutorial power and making certain that charges reflect true justice.
Reaffirming the value of the grand jury is essential for preserving civil liberties. A concerted effort to restore its integrity and purpose can pave the way for a fairer and more balanced justice system for all.
Comments