The Role of the Grand Jury: A Constitutional Check

The grand jury system, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dates back centuries. Originally intended as a safeguard against arbitrary prosecution, its function has evolved over time. Today, a grand jury serves as a screening body, evaluating evidence presented by prosecutors to determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Typically, between 16 and 23 ordinary citizens hear evidence presented by the U.S. Attorney or an assistant. Unlike a trial, this process is decidedly one-sided. There is no defense counsel present, and the prosecutor controls the evidence presented. While grand jurors can ask questions, they rely heavily on the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts. It’s a very one-sided process, designed to prevent frivolous charges, but often functioning as a formality.

<h2>A System Under Strain: Why Are Grand Juries Saying ‘No’?</h2>
<p>The recent wave of grand jury rejections is unprecedented. For nearly two decades, former U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III recalls rarely, if ever, witnessing a grand jury refuse to return <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/true_bill">a true bill</a> – the formal accusation necessary to proceed with a criminal trial. This shift suggests a deeper problem: a loss of faith in the impartiality and credibility of the Department of Justice.</p>
<p>The current situation was sparked by a video released in November 2025, featuring six Democratic lawmakers advising military and intelligence personnel to disregard illegal orders. President Trump responded with accusations of sedition, punishable by death, and directed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to pursue indictments. The grand jury’s refusal to comply wasn’t an isolated incident, but rather the latest in a series of setbacks for the administration before grand juries. </p>
<p>The secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings – protected by law <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45456">unless a federal judge authorizes their release</a> – means the public remains largely unaware of the evidence presented. However, the outcome speaks volumes. The grand jury, even accepting the prosecutor’s version of events, deemed the case unworthy of indictment.</p>

<h2>The Erosion of Trust: A Department Weaponized?</h2>
<p>Judge Jones III believes the Department of Justice has become “utterly weaponized” against perceived enemies, a gross misuse of prosecutorial power. This perception is fueled by instances where judges have openly expressed disbelief in the arguments presented by U.S. attorneys, citing demonstrable falsehoods stated in court. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges/">Judges simply don’t believe what U.S. attorneys are telling them</a>, based on past demonstrable falsehoods.</p>
<p>This lack of trust extends to grand juries, composed of average citizens acutely aware of the political climate. The President’s public pronouncements, such as labeling the lawmakers as committing seditious acts, further contaminate the process, undermining the principle of due process.  </p>
<p>What happens when the very institutions designed to uphold justice are viewed with suspicion?  Is this a temporary aberration, or a fundamental shift in the relationship between the government and its citizens? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
  <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/717740/original/file-20260211-66-d5semw.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="Trump Social Media Post" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/717740/original/file-20260211-66-d5semw.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
  <figcaption>President Donald Trump’s social media post responding to the lawmakers’ video. <span class="attribution"><a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715">Truth Social</a></span></figcaption>
</figure>

<p>The ability of a prosecutor to repeatedly seek indictments, even after being rebuffed, is a double-edged sword. While they can “return to the well,” as seen in the case of Letitia James in Virginia <a href="https://abcnews.com/US/2nd-time-grand-jury-refuses-indict-new-york/story?id=128279779"></a>, it risks further damaging their credibility and potentially facing a second public rejection.</p>
<div style="background-color:#fffbe6; border-left:5px solid #ffc107; padding:15px; margin:20px 0;"><strong>Pro Tip:</strong> The Fifth Amendment doesn't guarantee an indictment; it guarantees the *opportunity* for a fair hearing before a grand jury, a crucial distinction often overlooked.</div>

Frequently Asked Questions About Grand Juries

Here are some common questions about grand juries and their role in the justice system:

• What is the primary function of a grand jury?

  The primary function of a grand jury is to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, not to determine guilt or innocence.

• Can a grand jury indict anyone the prosecutor asks them to?

  No, a grand jury is not obligated to indict simply because a prosecutor requests it. They must independently assess the evidence and determine if probable cause exists.

• Is the grand jury process transparent to the public?

  No, grand jury proceedings are strictly confidential , protecting the integrity of the investigation and the rights of those involved.

• What happens if a grand jury refuses to indict someone?

  If a grand jury refuses to indict, the case typically cannot proceed to trial unless new evidence is presented. The prosecutor can attempt to present the case to another grand jury, but risks further damage to their credibility.

• How does the recent trend of grand jury rejections impact the justice system?

  The recent trend suggests a growing lack of trust in the Department of Justice and raises concerns about the potential for political interference in the legal process.