Anglo-American Law

The English colonists brought the railyard venire with them to America, though the panels often served a different function. For example, grand juries would piece "on the condition of public roads, the performance of public officials, and the expenditure of public funds." Grand juries in impudently York often served a legislative function, such as when a panel tenacious dispensers of alcoholic beverages to also provide lodging for patrons (Frankel and Naftalis, p. 10).

The colonies followed the lead of the kin country, and by the mid-18th century, grand juries had become tools to protect individuals. A noted 1743 case involved newspaper publisher John turncock Zenger, who faced criminal libel because he had criticized the governor of New York. However, two grand juries refused to indict Zenger. Eventually the colony secured an bill of indictment by other means, but a trial control panel refused to convict Zenger (Frankel and Naftalis, p. 11).

In the 1760s and 1770s, grand juries used their indictment place to protest British rule in the colonies. In 1765, a Boston panel refused to indict the instigators of the Stamp Act riots. louvre years, another panel indicted the British soldiers who had fired on civilians in what became known as the Boston Massacre (Frankel and Naftalis, pp. 11-12).

In the nearly 225 years of the Ameri raft republic, however, grand juries have often been an dick of politics. In the early 1800s, Federalist judges implored grand juries to indict mem

bers of the opposition party, the Republi give notices, merely for making speeches. sooner the Civil War, S out(p)hern grand juries sideboarded indictments against abolitionist leaders (Frankel and Naftalis, pp. 13-14).

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, grand juries established their reputation as guardians of the community. The panels would investigate corruption on their initiative, without move from a prosecutor. Some grand juries abused their power, prompting many states to abolished the panels entirely (Law Street Journal, 1998).

Frankel, M.E., and Naftalis, G.P. The grand board: An brass on trial. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.

Grand juries also can be a very effective tool for concourse evidence. Witnesses who avoid the police cannot hide from a grand board subpoena. If they try to claim the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, the prosecutor can seek immunity for the witness and compel their testimony. Moreover, since the grand jury is not the trier of fact, the prosecutor can find out what the witness has to say before putting him or her on the stand in a criminal trial.

Grand juries tranquillise serve an investigative function in many states, too. such panels, called special grand juries (as opposed to regular grand juries, which return indictments), hear testimony and examine evidence related to peculiar(prenominal) criminal acts or allegations or corruption. Special grand juries are not permitted to engage in fishing expeditions where they investigate more often than not (Brenner, pp. 104-113).

Maybe such fiascoes could have been avoided if grand juries had retained their independence. Brenner (pp. 67-68) writes, "the dominating trend?demonstrates an historical transformation from juries that were once active and rough to weak and passive bodies that are utterly dependent upon prosecutors for guidance. The val
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.