Skip to main content

The Grand Jury

By

The United States grand jury system is receiving national attention in the wake of two controversial grand juries’ decisions that have prompted popular protests following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown and the chokehold death of Eric Garner.  For persons interested in learning about grand juries in order to better follow the national debate, the following resource links may be of use:

The grand jury was established in the United States by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and Title III, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs its operations in federal court.  A grand jury practitioner’s resource guide is offered by the Department of Justice. 

The Fifth Amendment does not apply to state courts; the states themselves have the authority to chose whether or not to employ grand juries.  The following links lead to the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes or criminal code sections empowering grand juries in the various states and the District of Columbia:
  1. Alabama
  2. Alaska
  3. Arizona
  4. Arkansas
  5. California
  6. Colorado
  7. Connecticut
  8. Delaware
  9. District of Columbia
  10. Florida
  11. Georgia
  12. Hawaii
  13. Idaho (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
  14. Illinois
  15. Indiana
  16. Iowa
  17. Kansas
  18. Kentucky (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
  19. Louisiana
  20. Maine
  21. Maryland
  22. Massachusetts
  23. Michigan
  24. Minnesota
  25. Mississippi
  26. Missouri
  27. Montana
  28. Nebraska
  29. Nevada
  30. New Hampshire
  31. New Jersey
  32. New Mexico
  33. New York
  34. North Carolina
  35. North Dakota (1, 2)
  36. Ohio
  37. Oklahoma
  38. Oregon
  39. Pennsylvania
  40. Rhode Island (1, 2)
  41. South Carolina
  42. South Dakota
  43. Tennessee
  44. Texas (1, 2)
  45. Utah
  46. Vermont (1, 2)
  47. Virginia
  48. Washington
  49. West Virginia
  50. Wisconsin
  51. Wyoming
Finally, while the Brown and Garner decisions were made in Missouri and New York, the question of bias in grand jury deliberations is not a new subject of concern in the Houston area.  Local scholars interested in learning more about grand juries have the opportunity to consult the following resources, all available from the University of Houston library system:
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le
1 comment
Read more

C-SPAN Video Archive Now Online

By
Legislative researchers and politics fans take note. C-SPAN recently completed a digitization project placing the entirety of its video collection online. The archives record all three C-SPAN networks seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. The videos are available at no cost for historical, educational, research, and archival uses. The database includes over 160,000 hours of video recorded since 1987 and the programs are indexed by subject, speaker names, titles, affiliations, sponsors, committees, categories, formats, policy groups, keywords, and locations. The most recent, most watched, and most shared videos are highlighted on the main page. To start watching, visit the C-SPAN Video Library and use the search function at the top of the page.
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requires
Post a Comment
Read more