What is a Grand Jury?

iStock
iStock

Grand juries make the news in almost every major federal case. There’s a good reason for that: the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which says, in part, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”

But what is a grand jury? And why are they there? 

WHAT IS A GRAND JURY?

A grand jury is considered the "sword and the shield" of the judicial system. A shield because presenting a case to the grand jury before proceeding to trial prevents prosecutors from trying overzealous, politically motivated, or weak cases.

The sword is in reference to the grand jury’s broad investigative powers. They have the power to issue subpoenas, compelling witnesses to testify under oath (barring application of the more famous part of the Fifth Amendment) and making people produce necessary documents. That’s why going before a grand jury doesn’t necessarily mean a crime has occurred or that an indictment is coming; it may just be needed to help the investigative process along.

Their proceedings are also secret. No judges are present and usually the only lawyer in the room is the prosecutor. It’s intended to make witnesses willing to testify and, from the defendant’s side, it means that they’re not damaged by allegations that aren’t strong enough to make it past the grand jury.

SO WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS BIZARRE JURY?

Historians debate whether the Assize of Clarendon was a revolutionary document or merely a codification of a preexisting tradition [PDF]. Either way, in 1166 English King Henry II enacted the Assize of Clarendon, which required a group of “lawful men” to gather periodically to inform the King’s justices of the names of people who the community suspected had recently committed a robbery/theft or murder in the area (this would later be expanded to other crimes). According to the assize, “he who shall be found through the oath of the aforesaid persons to have been charged or published [as a criminal] ... shall be taken and shall go to the ordeal of water.”

While often described as essentially an early neighborhood watch program, historians credit this assize with splitting the process of indictment and trial [PDF], a critical step to the modern grand jury. 

In 1215 (the same year as Magna Carta) the Fourth Lateran Council of Pope Innocent III banned priests from giving blessings in trials by ordeal, forcing the entire legal system of England to evolve.

With the disappearance of trials by ordeal, the modern idea of trial by jury began appearing. It soon became obvious that having the same people accuse someone and then convict them was at best awkward, so the two responsibilities began splitting into two independent juries: the accusing jury and the trial jury [PDF]. In 1368, Edward III formalized the grand jury system and thus the grand jury became the "sword."

The most important moment for the "shield" came in the 1680s, during the trials of the Earl of Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge. Shaftesbury and his ally Colledge had been attempting to remove the Catholic James (future King James II) from the line of succession to the throne by having King Charles II legitimize one of his illegitimate Protestant sons. King Charles II reacted by dissolving Parliament, and soon arrested Shaftesbury and Colledge, then charged them with treason.

The London grand jury, though, populated by people who agreed with Shaftesbury, held firm and refused to indict either of them. The foreman of the Colledge grand jury was even sent to the Tower of London (although some have argued it was for an unrelated charge). This case was a watershed moment because it showed the grand jury was able to stand up to the king and deny even a trial. The grand jury was becoming a powerful tool against the government. Sadly though, King Charles II moved the Colledge trial to Oxford, found a more sympathetic grand jury, and executed Colledge while the Earl of Shaftesbury fled the country.

The grand jury would continue to be a part of English law until it was eliminated for most cases in 1933, and abolished completely in 1948. But grand juries would continue in one of England’s former colonies ...

THE GRAND JURY IN COLONIAL AMERICA

The American equivalent of the Shaftesbury/Colledge case was the case of Peter Zenger in the 1730s. Zenger was the printer of The New York Weekly Journal, which was publishing articles against New York’s Governor, William Cosby. Cosby decided to arrest Zenger for printing seditious libel, but two separate grand juries refused to issue an indictment. Cosby then used a different legal process to go around the grand jury, but eventually the trial jury also refused to convict Zenger of seditious libel.

Both the attempts at prosecuting someone solely for printing a paper and the attempts at getting around the decision of the grand jury enraged colonists, and although it didn’t create an important precedent, the case helped solidify the view Colonists had toward an independent press and an independent grand jury.

The grand jury soon became a bludgeon wielded by the colonists against unpopular British acts. Grand juries “all but nullified the law of seditious libel in the colonies” and a Boston grand jury even refused to indict the colonists behind the Stamp Act riots. Other unpopular laws became effectively unenforceable [PDF]. Grand juries were coming to be viewed as a critical part of the judicial system; a way to protect against a tyrannical government. So when it came time to write the Bill of Rights, they were a natural inclusion.

THE GRAND JURY IN AMERICA

In the United States, grand juries would exhibit such independence that the term “runaway grand jury” appeared to describe grand juries that didn’t follow the prosecutor’s orders. Perhaps the most extreme application of the investigative powers occurred in Minnesota. In 1902, Minneapolis mayor Albert Alonzo Ames was widely considered corrupt, but no one was willing to go after him or his ‘gang’ until Hovey Clarke was appointed the foreman of a grand jury. According to a 1903 McClure’s Magazine, “[Clarke] did not want to be a grand juryman, he did not want to be a foreman; but since he was both, he wanted to accomplish something.”

And what he did was bring down the mayor. He won over his grand jury, then when the prosecutor was unwilling to bring down Ames, he excused the prosecutor. Next he used the power of the grand jury to hire local detectives. According to McClures, the first batch of detectives were talkative and discussed the case with police. While police were watching those detectives, Clarke hired a second set of detectives to actually investigate. He even personally went to the jail to talk to criminals trying to get someone to flip. This case became national news and demonstrated the power of the grand jury (although after fleeing, getting captured, being convicted, and having that conviction overturned, Ames would go free).

Today, most states still have a grand jury, but their application varies widely. Since they’re enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, it's their role as the sword and the shield in federal cases that gets the most attention.

In recent years, there has been criticism that the ‘sword’ power of the grand jury has been overused while the ‘shield’ power has been diminished, turning the grand jury of today into essentially a rubber stamp for prosecutors.

Hawaii has attempted to remedy this with the creation of the Grand Jury Legal Advisor (GJLA) or Grand Jury Counsel. In traditional grand juries, the only lawyer in the room is the prosecution, which could lead to a conflict between the prosecutor providing legal advice and hoping for an indictment. The purpose of the GJLA is to restore some of the ‘shield’ function by giving the grand jury an independent advisor who can inform them of their rights and powers. According to Thaddeus Hoffmeister of the University of Dayton, “the GJLA strengthens the traditional role of the grand jury as a shield against unwarranted government accusations while still permitting grand jurors, prosecutors, and witnesses to perform their long-established functions.” [PDF]

It’s just another step in the evolution of the modern grand jury.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Why Are Shower Doors in Hotel Rooms Getting Smaller?

sl-f/iStock via Getty Images
sl-f/iStock via Getty Images

Shower doors are shrinking in posh hotels, and minimalism is to blame, Condé Nast Traveler reports.

In lieu of hanging shower curtains or providing full shower doors, many newer hotels are opting for glass panels that cover only half the length of the shower. That’s frustrating for many travelers, who complain the growing trend is inconvenient and leaves bathroom floors sopping wet and slippery after shower use.

According to Condé Nast Traveler, the half-door trend began in European hotels in the 1980s. “A lot of it comes down to people trying to design hotel rooms with limited space,” boutique hotel designer Tom Parker told the magazine. “It’s about the swing of the shower door, because it has to open outward for safety reasons, like [if] someone falls in the shower. You have to figure out where the door swing’s going to go, make sure it’s not [hitting] the main door. It’s just about clearances.” A smaller door also has the added benefit of making the space appear larger than it really is, according to the magazine.

The trend is also connected to the birth of minimalist “lifestyle hotels,” which cater to a younger, hipper clientele that gravitates toward sleek lines and modern design. Plus, half-size glass doors are easier to clean than shower curtains, which tend to trap bacteria and need to regularly be replaced, which can add up to significant additional costs for a hotel.

Theoretically, even half-door showers are designed to minimize water spillage. Designers try to level the floors in bathrooms so water doesn’t pool in random areas, and they place shower heads and knobs in areas that are more protected by glass paneling. And where design doesn’t work, hotels try to pick up the slack.

“Hotels tend to mitigate the risks by offering non-slip interior shower mats, cloth bath mats for stepping out of the shower, grab bars, [and] open showers or no-sill showers which avoid having to step up and over the ledge,” designer Douglas DeBoer, founder and CEO of Rebel Design Group, told Condé Nast Traveler.

But the half-door trend still has yet to gain much love from hotel guests. “The older generation much, much prefers having a shower door,” Parker told Condé Nast Traveler. “I’m like a 70-year-old man at heart anyway. I like [a shower door] if it’s in keeping with the style of the rest of the room.”

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Does Pushing the Button at a Crosswalk Actually Do Anything?

Pressing this crosswalk button may or may not do something.
Pressing this crosswalk button may or may not do something.
David Tran/iStock via Getty Images

Since crosswalk signals rarely seem to give you the green light (or more accurately, the white, human-shaped light) right after you press the button, you may find yourself wondering if those buttons actually work. The potentially exasperating answer is this: It depends.

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that crosswalk buttons aren’t designed to have an immediate effect; they’re just supposed to tell the system that a person is waiting to cross. As CityLab explained, some systems won’t ever give pedestrians the crossing signal unless someone has pressed the button, while others are programmed to shorten the wait time for walkers when the button has been pressed. No matter what, the system still has to cycle through its other phases to give cars enough time to pass through the intersection, so you’ll probably still have to stand there for a moment.

During busy traffic times or under other extenuating circumstances, however, cities can switch the system to what’s known as “recall mode,” when pedestrian crossings are part of the cycle already and pressing the button quite literally changes nothing. Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell if a particular button is in recall mode, short of calling your city officials and asking an expert to come inspect it.

But if you feel like a button isn’t doing anything, there’s a pretty good chance it’s been permanently deactivated. As congestion has increased and the systems to manage it have become more advanced over the years, cities have moved away from using crosswalk buttons at all. In 2018, for example, CNN reported that only around 100 of New York City’s 1000 buttons were still functioning. Since actually removing the buttons from crosswalks would be a costly endeavor, cities have opted to leave them intact, just waiting to be pummeled by impatient pedestrians who don’t know any better.

What about 'close door' buttons on elevators, you ask? That depends, too.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER