Arguments for Why the Grand Jury System is No Longer Relevant
In the U.S., the Grand Jury System evolved into a prosecutor-led process with broad investigative power and is controversial today because many argue it no longer operates as the independent safeguard as intended in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, largely due to five key concerns:
- Prosecutors dominate proceedings, presenting evidence without input, feedback, or challenge from the defense.
- Strict secrecy limits transparency and public accountability.
- Grand jurors often depend heavily on prosecutors, raising doubts about their true independence.
- In cases involving police, potential conflicts of interest can undermine trust in impartial decision-making.
- The grand jury’s broad investigative powers, such as the power to compel testimony and documents, can be seen as overly coercive. Together, these features fuel the view that the system has shifted from a citizen-led check on government power to a process largely controlled by the prosecution.
The controversy surrounding the U.S. grand jury system stems from a central tension: although it was originally designed as a citizen-led safeguard against government power, many argue that in practice it now operates largely under prosecutorial influence, raising concerns about fairness, transparency, and independence. This perception is reinforced by the famous remark attributed to Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of New York, who stated that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich,” highlighting the widespread belief that grand juries rarely act as an effective check on the prosecution. 1
“In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals from 1985 to 1992, proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments. His phrase, if a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ summarizes the state of legal affairs where a prosecutor can find some law written somewhere that even the most well-behaved citizen has broken.” 2
The Sport of Ruining Lives: Religious & Political Persecution in Modern America showcases merely one example of abuse and overreach of the Grand Jury System. There are many others.
Arguments for Why the Grand Jury System is Considered Relevant by Some
Arguments in favor of the U.S. grand jury system emphasize its continued role as a constitutional safeguard under the Fifth Amendment, providing a layer of protection by requiring citizen approval before serious criminal charges are brought. However, this citizen approval does not require the other side to be heard. Supporters, however, argue that it promotes democratic participation by involving ordinary citizens in the justice process, helps protect the innocent through secret proceedings that avoid reputational harm, and serves as a powerful investigative tool capable of compelling evidence in complex cases such as fraud or organized crime. Overall, it is defended as a mechanism that both restrains government power and strengthens the effectiveness of criminal investigations. In cases such as organized crime, corporate fraud, and public corruption, it may be necessary.
Abuse of the System Leaves it Crying for Reform