Jury VS Grand Jury

[george29]

Was reading the case of Tracy Roberson and it said:

THE FATE OF TRACY...

On Wednesday (March 28th) a jury decided not to indict 28 year-old Darrell Roberson on charges of murder. However, the following day the Tarrant County grand jury presented an indictment of Tracy Roberson. As a result, the 35 year-old woman is being charged with manslaughter, and with making a false report to police (by stating that she was raped.) The manslaughter charge is due to the fact that she recklessly caused Devin LaSalle's death by claiming she was raped.

My question, what is the difference in legal terms between a regular jury and a grand jury?

Thanks.

 

[misANTHrope]

Hmm, I always thought that a grand jury decided whether or not to indict, while a "regular" jury decided on the guilt of the defendant... but this seems to indicate otherwise.

I'm curious as well.

 

[csmkersh]

This is a case of sloppy reporting. Both individuals were brought before a grand jury. Darrell was no-billed on the charge of murder while a true bill was brought against Tracy for manslaughter.

Under Texas law, all cases involving a homicide are supposed to be presented to a grand jury. There it is determined if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial for the charge presented by the DA. Oh, and if the DA doesn't like the results, usually a no-bill, the DA may present the case before another grand jury. Has been done by the Austin DA who had a bias against licensed CCW.
​

 

[DrLaw]

In most instances

A Grand Jury is a panel of 16 or more, depending on the State you are in, who hears the facts of a case presented primarily by the prosecution and decides:
1. Was a crime committed, and
2. Is the person accused probably involved with it.

If the answer to both is yes, then the person is indicted and the next step is an arraignment (pleading guilty or not guilty), followed by a trial. An indictment or probable cause finding is the first step in bringing a person to trial for a felony charge. Absent a probable cause finding for a felony, no person can be brought to trial on a charge. Grand juries were replaced in some jurisdictions by Preliminary Hearings in front of a judge, where the judge determines the same two things.

A jury is simply a panel of 6 to 12 people who decide guilt and only guilt - or, was there evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime. Since a defendant is presumed innocent until a jury says guilty, the determination of a jury is really to determine guilt, as without guilt, the person is automatically not guilty.

Hope this explains it all.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

A Grand Jury is an incredibly powerful investigative tool, for several reasons:

1. Grand Juries can be held in secret and can deliver sealed indictments.

2. No defense may be presented to a Grand Jury.

3. Grand Juries hold the power of contempt.

#3 above is the big one. If you are questioned by a police detective about a major crime, you can go right ahead and tell him to piss off. If you are subpoenaed before a Grand Jury, you will either respond to the subpoena and talk or be held in Contempt. That means you go directly to jail without trial, and will be held there until you decide to talk. This in an incredibly powerful tool that can blow open otherwise unsolvable cases. Dirtbags often view "ratting" or "snitching", even against somebody who has committed a heinous crime, as the worst thing anybody can do. Police routinely run into this kind of stone-walling, leaving crimes unsolved. An indefinite stay in jail can change almost anyone's mind.

I wish we had Grand Juries in Michigan.

 

[jrfoxx]

This is a case of sloppy reporting.

That was my thinking too, as I always thought the same as misANTHrope said in his post, and the article seemed to indicate otherwise and had me confused.not that confusing me about thing involving the law is very hard, as I just have a REAL hard time wrapping my brain around most of that stuff, as it RARELY seems to be consistant in anything, or follow any real logic to me the vast majority of the time.

 

[alsaqr]

"This is a case of sloppy reporting. Both individuals were brought before a grand jury. Darrell was no-billed on the charge of murder while a true bill was brought against Tracy for manslaughter."

Good post. BTW: In OK the prosecutor is not required to take a righteous shooting case to the grand jury.

 

[Jim K]

The difference is that the grand jury determines if the state has enough evidence for a trial. It does not determine guilt or innocence and double jeopardy does not apply since a "no bill" is not an acquital.

A trial jury, called a "petit jury" decides guilt or innocence and in some states the degree of punishment. A person acquitted (found not guilty) cannot be tried again for the same crime.

It is always odd to most of us, but the law really doesn't recognize the idea of "innocence". A verdict of "not guilty" doesn't mean the person on trial did not commit the crime it means he was not proven guilty.

Jim

 

[Mall Ninja]

the law really doesn't recognize the idea of "innocence". A verdict of "not guilty" doesn't mean the person on trial did not commit the crime it means he was not proven guilty.

Yep. And the simple reason is that it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

For example, say I fished for 2 weeks straight and caught nothing. Does that prove there are no fish in the lake? No. Nor would 100 straight days of fishing and catching nothing.

As Donald Rumsfeld once said regarding WMD in Iraq, "Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence."

 

[DaveBeal]

If you are questioned by a police detective about a major crime, you can go right ahead and tell him to piss off. If you are subpoenaed before a Grand Jury, you will either respond to the subpoena and talk or be held in Contempt. That means you go directly to jail without trial, and will be held there until you decide to talk. This in an incredibly powerful tool that can blow open otherwise unsolvable cases.

Yes, and prosecutors sometimes use a grand jury's power to compel testimony to investigate a case in which he/she hasn't yet decided whom to prosecute or whether to prosecute at all.

No defense may be presented to a Grand Jury.

While this is almost always true in practice, theoretically a grand jury is an independent body that can subpoena and gather testimony from anyone. I served on a grand jury in which a prosecutor did present exculpatory evidence in one case, because the credibility of the alleged victim was questionable.

 

[chilie]

A grand jury ( In Ohio) is convened for a period of time by the prosecutor. He presents his case, findings and any other evidence. The grand jury takes a vote and if the majority wins. If the person is not indicted then the grand ury is said to retur a "No-True Bill" and the defendent is not charged, unbeknownst to him most of the time though. Because the grand Jury meets in private and the defnese is not allowed to attend in most states and there is nary a judge. A jury is guranteed by the 6th ammendment and allows for an impartial jury made up of the residents of the jurisdiction in which your are charged. It is supposd to be a true random corss section of the communit. They hear in open arguements from both sides and it is the States duty to prove their case beyond a REASONABLE dout and the jury must decide this unanimously. That pretty much sums it up. A grand jury happens before a juryand it is the grand jury that indicts someone and they ury decides guilt or innocence. IANAL