It would be very disappointing to find that the jury principal was fatally flawed, not the sure defence of the rights of the individual against the over-mighty power of the State that we have always believed.
A Grand Jury seems (for us) a superb idea. Following a significant and contested incident a random selection of 23 (?) citizens is summoned to hear the evidence, debate it and decide on a course of action. Rather than stilling protest, in the US the Grand Jury seems to foment it.
So could I ask our US contributors to explain (and I apologise for using this forum for FAQs).
Is a Grand Jury (GJ) as I’ve described it above?
What is wrong with the process that makes its verdicts so un-acceptable?
Filed under: Juries | 15 Comments »