Fifth Amendment Indictment By Grand Jury

A grand jury is a legal body empowered to conduct official proceedings. These proceedings investigate potential criminal conduct and determine criminal charges. 

The concept of the grand jury dates back to 12th century England, serving as a buffer between the monarchy and its subjects. It was initially intended to limit the king's power by ensuring that accusations were warranted. The grand jury evolved into a critical element of the justice system in English common law.

The primary function of the grand jury is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to indict an individual and proceed to trial. This differs from trial juries, which determine guilt or innocence.

Grand juries assess whether probable cause exists to charge someone with a crime. They review the evidence presented by the prosecution without the defense present.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes the Grand Jury Clause. It states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."

This clause ensures that serious federal charges cannot be brought without the approval of a grand jury, providing a preliminary check on prosecutorial power.

The grand jury requirement is mandated for federal cases. However, it is not uniformly applied to state courts. In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bind states. States may use other methods, such as preliminary hearings, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to charge an individual.

Rights Protected Under the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment encompasses several fundamental rights:

These rights play a crucial role in safeguarding individual freedoms and ensuring fair legal processes. The right to indictment by grand jury also interacts with other Fifth Amendment rights.

Grand Juries and Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination is particularly relevant in grand jury proceedings. Witnesses called before a grand jury can invoke this right to avoid answering questions that may incriminate them. This balances the government's need to investigate crimes and protect individual rights.

Due Process and Grand Juries

Due process is a constitutional principle that guarantees fair legal procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. It encompasses both procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process refers to the methods and procedures used in legal proceedings. Substantive due process protects certain fundamental rights from government interference.

During grand jury proceedings, due process protects a defendant's constitutional rights. This includes:

  • The right to notice

  • The opportunity to be heard

  • The assurance that legal proceedings are conducted impartially

Although the grand jury process is less adversarial than a trial, due process principles still apply. This ensures that indictments are based on legitimate and adequate evidence.

Does Double Jeopardy Apply to Grand Jury Indictments?

The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being prosecuted multiple times for the same offense. Once a person is acquitted or convicted, they cannot be retried for the same crime, safeguarding against repeated prosecutions and potential government abuse.

In the context of grand jury proceedings, double jeopardy prevents a person from being re-indicted for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction.

However, it does not preclude the possibility of facing charges for different offenses arising from the same act. It also does not apply to separate sovereigns (e.g., state and federal governments) prosecuting the same act under their respective laws.

Exceptions and Limitations

Certain exceptions exist to the double jeopardy protection. For instance, a mistrial does not constitute jeopardy, allowing for a retrial. Additionally, if new evidence emerges or the previous trial is fundamentally flawed, a retrial may be permissible under specific circumstances.

The Exclusionary Rule and Grand Jury Proceedings

The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. However, this typically does not apply to grand jury proceedings. The Supreme Court has established that the grand jury's primary purpose is to ascertain probable cause. Applying the exclusionary rule at this stage would hinder its investigatory function.

Key Supreme Court Cases Influencing Grand Jury Practices

Several Supreme Court cases have shaped grand jury practices. Read about them below:

Hurtado v. California (1884)

Hurtado v. California is a foundational Supreme Court case. It addressed whether the requirement for a grand jury indictment in the Fifth Amendment applies to state criminal prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The decision ultimately shaped the understanding of the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Joseph Hurtado was charged with murder by an information filed by a prosecutor in California rather than by a grand jury indictment. An information is a formal criminal charge initiated by a prosecutor without a grand jury.

Hurtado argued that this procedure violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. He contended that this right should apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The issue was whether the Fifth Amendment's requirement for a grand jury indictment in federal criminal prosecutions is a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and, therefore, applicable to the states.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Hurtado. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions. Justice Stanley Matthews wrote the majority opinion. It established that states could use other methods, such as information, to initiate criminal charges.

United States v. Calandra (1974)

United States v. Calandra addressed the application of the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights during a trial. This case questioned whether the rule should also apply to grand jury investigations.

John Calandra was the owner of a loan-sharking operation. During an investigation, federal agents obtained a search warrant to search Calandra's office for evidence related to illegal gambling.

However, during the search, they discovered and seized documents indicating loan-sharking activities. Calandra was subsequently subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and produce the documents. He refused, arguing that the evidence had been obtained through an illegal search. Therefore, it should be excluded under the exclusionary rule.

The primary legal issue was whether the exclusionary rule should be extended to grand jury proceedings, thereby preventing a grand jury from considering evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings.

The Court noted that the grand jury is an investigatory body distinct from a trial jury. Its role is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and to protect citizens from unfounded criminal prosecutions. Imposing the exclusionary rule would hinder the grand jury's ability to investigate criminal conduct.

The exclusionary rule is designed to deter unlawful police conduct by excluding improperly obtained evidence from being used at trial. However, applying this rule to grand jury proceedings would provide only a marginal deterrence benefit while significantly impairing the grand jury's function. The Court reasoned that any benefit gained in deterring police misconduct wouldn't be worth it. It would be outweighed by the negative impact on the grand jury's investigatory process.

The Court also highlighted that individuals retain other protections during grand jury proceedings. This includes the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, any evidence obtained illegally can still be challenged and excluded during the trial.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona is one of American legal history's most well-known Supreme Court cases. It requires law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. This has had profound implications for the rights of individuals during legal proceedings, including grand jury practices.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and accused of kidnapping and raping a young woman. After two hours of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, he was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney before the interrogation. His confession was evidence in his trial, leading to his conviction.

The central legal issue in Miranda v. Arizona was whether the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extends to the interrogation of a suspect by law enforcement officers. Were procedural safeguards necessary to protect this right?

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. Suspects must be informed of their rights before any custodial interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, which outlined procedural safeguards to protect the right against self-incrimination.

The Court emphasized that the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This protection extends to police interrogations. This is because the coercive environment can lead to involuntary confessions.

The Court established what are now known as "Miranda warnings." These include informing suspects of:

  • Their right to remain silent

  • Their right to an attorney

  • That anything they say can be used against them in court

"Miranda rights" are designed to counteract the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations.

The Court reasoned that without these warnings, any statements made during custodial interrogation are presumed to be compelled. That makes said statements inadmissible. That is, unless the prosecution can demonstrate that the suspect knowingly and intelligently waived their rights.

Hoffman v. United States (1951)

Hoffman v. United States deals with the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination in the context of grand jury proceedings. The case clarifies the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and the conditions under which it can be invoked.

Samuel J. Hoffman was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating violations of federal law. Hoffman refused to answer when asked about his occupation and specific business dealings. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court held him in contempt. They asserted his fear of self-incrimination was not well-founded, and he was obligated to respond.

The legal issue was whether Hoffman's refusal to answer grand jury questions was justified under the Fifth Amendment. The Court had to determine the proper standard to assess whether a witness's fear of self-incrimination is reasonable.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hoffman. His invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was valid. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion. He emphasized that the privilege should be broadly construed to protect individuals from being compelled to provide evidence that could potentially incriminate them.

The grand jury plays a crucial role in upholding justice. It serves to protect constitutional rights within the American legal system. A review of evidence before serious charges can be brought protects against unjust prosecutions.

The Fifth Amendment remains a vital component in ensuring the fairness of the criminal justice process.

Was this helpful?

More On the Constitution

Learn about the most important legal document in the United States.

Read more >