NCJ Number
15800
Journal
Arizona Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Dated: (1973) Pages: 893-917
Date Published
1973
Length
25 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE PURPOSE, FUNCTION, AND AUTHORITY OF GRAND JURIES, AND THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THEM.
Abstract
THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE IS CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A WITNESS CAN HAVE A SUBPOENA QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEMAND FOR EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE OR NOT RELEVANT TO ANY SUBJECT THE GRAND JURY IS AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE. TWO 1941 DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT - IN RE DIONISIO AND IN RE SEPTEMBER 1971 GRAND JURY (MARA) ARE CITED AND DISCUSSED. THESE TWO RULINGS FORMULATED SIGNIFICANT LIMITS ON THE RIGHT OF GRAND JURIES TO MAKE UNCHALLENGEABLE DEMANDS FOR EXEMPLARY EVIDENCE. IN BOTH CASES THE COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE REASONABLENESS OF ITS REQUEST BEFORE THE EVIDENCE COULD BE COMPELLED. THE LAW UNDER DIONISIO-MARA IS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE FOLLOWING AREAS: THE REQUIREMENT OF A PRIOR SHOWING OF RELEVANCE OR REASONABLENESS; GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RESTRAINT ON UNREASONABLE SEIZURES; STANDARDS FOR DOCUMENTARY, AS OPPOSED TO TESTIMONIAL OR EXEMPLARY, EVIDENCE, FISHING EXPEDITIONS AND DRAGNET INVESTIGATIONS, THE USE OF GRAND JURIES TO AVOID FOURTH AMENDMENT RESTRAINTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY OR WITNESS. THE AUTHOR AGREES WITH THE SUPREME COURT AND CONCLUDES THAT COURT DECISIONS REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW RELEVANCY OR NEED ARE ERRONEOUS. HOWEVER, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, THE GOVERNMENT ADVISE A WITNESS AS TO THE REASON EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT AND, WHEN APPROPRIATE, HIS STATUS AS A POTENTIAL DEFENDANT. ALSO RECOMMENDED IS A BIFURCATED GRAND JURY SYSTEM, COMPOSED OF AN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL AND AN INDICTMENT JURY, IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE PROBLEM OF PROSECUTORIAL DOMINANCE OF THE GRAND JURY.