Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Sally Roberts on the Connecticut Grand Jury System:

http://www.bpslawyers.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=9/ArticleID=38

* * * *

The need for States to have a Grand Jury System as it once existed to protect all Americans:


* * * *

Connecticut’s Grand Jury System
March 4, 2006
By: Sally Roberts


Connecticut’s

Grand Jury System

By Richard R. Brown, Esq. & Sally A. Roberts, Esq.

I. Introduction

A. Definition and Nature

B. Origin and History

C. Grand Jury takes root in Connecticut

D. Criticism of the Grand Jury

II. Constitutional Grand Jury

A. Grand Jury Clause of United States Constitution

B. Constitutional Grand Jury in Connecticut

III. Common Law Investigatory Grand Jury

IV. Statutory Investigatory Inquiry (“One Man Grand Jury”)

A. Overview

B. Subpoena Powers

C. Right to be Present in the Grand Jury Room

D. Presence of Counsel before Grand Jury

E. Rules of Evidence

F. Alternate Jurors

G. Guidance from Federal Law

H. Immunity from Prosecution

I. Handwriting Exemplars

J. Secrecy of Proceedings

K. Testimony of Accused during Grand Jury Proceedings

L. Transcript of Indicting Grand Jury

M. Transcript of Investigatory Grand Jury

N. Findings and Record of Investigatory Grand Jury

O. Public Disclosure of Investigatory Grand Jury Findings

P. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by State’s Attorney

Q. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by Witness

R. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by Defendant

S. Use of Defendant’s Testimony from an Investigatory Grand Jury

I. Introduction

A. Definition and Nature

A grand jury[1] is a body of qualified persons selected and organized for the purpose of inquiring into the commission of crimes within the county or jurisdiction from which its members are drawn, determining the probability of a particular person’s guilt, and finding indictments against supposed offenders. It is an inquisitorial or investigative body of ancient origin, charged primarily with the duty of investigating infractions of the criminal law occurring within the county or jurisdiction. It is not the final arbiter of guilt or innocence. A grand jury is a part of the machinery of government, having for its object the detection and punishment of crime. It is an adjunct or appendage of the court under whose supervision it is impaneled, and it has no existence aside from that court.[2]

B. Origin and History

Originally transported to America from England by the early colonists, the grand jury has historically enjoyed considerable affection in this country as a shield or buffer against unfounded or unjust prosecutions. As explained in 1884 by the United States Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California:

The right of individual citizens to be secure from an open and public accusation of crime, and from the trouble, expense, and anxiety of a public trial before a probable cause is established by the presentment and indictment of a grand jury, in case of high offences, is justly regarded as one of the securities to the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive public prosecutions, and as one of the ancient immunities and privileges of English liberty.[3]

These sentiments have been echoed by the Connecticut Supreme Court: “The purpose of a requirement of an indictment by a grand jury is, no doubt, to prevent the harassment and suffering of an innocent person by compelling him to appear in court to respond to malicious or unfounded charges. Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 260 (1948), aff’d, 337 U.S. 901, reh’g denied, 337 U.S. 934 (1949). See also State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 275 (1970).

The grand jury’s history as an Anglo institution is believed to have originated with a command of Henry II at the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 for twelve knights, or twelve “good and lawful men” of every hundred and four lawful men, to disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses.[4] Gradually grand jury accusations began to be premised on information supplied by others as the grand jurors took to examining witnesses in private; by the time its role as a shielding device was first established in 17th century England, the grand jury had been operating in an investigatory capacity for at least three hundred years.[5]

C. Grand Jury takes root in Connecticut

In Connecticut, the grand jury originated during the colonial period, where it became the practice by custom and later by statute for the court to summon grand juries in all cases where an accused was charged with a capital crime. In this capacity, the grand jury appears to have achieved great popularity by ignoring technical guilt and refusing to indict in the numerous cases were (as was common in that period) capital punishment was imposed for relatively minor offenses. [6]

In the preface to the first volume of the Connecticut Reports, Thomas Day wrote of the history of the grand jury in Connecticut.[7] The earliest enactment in regard to grand juries was passed in 1643, which provided that a grand jury of twelve men was required to assemble annually in September “or as many & oft as the Governor or Courte shall thinke meet” in order to “make presentment” of any crimes in their jurisdiction of which they had knowledge.[8] The Superior Court was established as a court of general jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters in 1711,[9] and in 1784,[10] the Superior Court and the County Courts were authorized by statute to order a grand jury of eighteen chosen from the Grand Jurors of the respective towns “to enquire after and present such criminal offenses as should be cognizable by said courts respectively, where there should be occasion.”[11]

Under this statute, which remains essentially unchanged to this day,[12] the inquisitorial powers of the common-law grand jury have been utilized by state prosecutors to conduct investigations not preceded by formal charges into complex criminal schemes involving public officials.[13]

D. Criticism of the Grand Jury

Despite its popularity, the grand jury has been attacked as inefficient and incompetent. In the late nineteenth century, a movement toward abolition of the grand jury took hold, which was fueled in part by the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to impose the Fifth Amendment’s indictment requirement on the states as a matter of fourteenth amendment due process.[14] This movement culminated ultimately with the abolishment of grand juries in Great Britain.[15]

Much of the criticism has centered on the grand jury’s perceived role as a “rubber stamp” for a prosecutor who drafts the indictments, determines the evidence to be reviewed, provides legal advice, examines witnesses, and otherwise controls the timing of a proceeding, which takes place in secret and ex parte and therefore without benefit of the defendant’s input and presence. In addition, the United States Supreme Court’s refusal[16] to invalidate federal indictments based entirely on hearsay evidence, and the ensuing judicial reluctance to prescribe the nature and quantity of evidence required for grand jury accusation, has been regarded as a severe impediment to the quality of grand jury review. In its place, many critics advocate use of a preliminary hearing, conducted before a single knowledgeable judicial official in a public adversarial setting, as simpler, cheaper, relatively impervious to procedural attack, and much more effective and reliable as a screening device.[17]

Proponents contend, on the other hand, that the grand jury offers a more independent and democratically desirable screening alternative, since it invests a panel of anonymous lay representatives with authority to define the appropriate exercise of prosecutorial power in light of community notions of fairness, in a setting insulated from public pressure and criticism.[18]

Many of the criticisms outlined above have less impact when applied to Connecticut, where the independence and impartial character of the grand jury is supported and buttressed by many unique features.[19]

The durability of the Connecticut grand jury is highlighted by the virtual absence, until recently, of legislative enactments governing its powers and operation, despite the fact that grand juries have functioned in Connecticut since the Colonial period. With the exception of the relatively recent statutes governing grand jury transcripts and witness immunity, the only sources of authority defining the function of the grand jury prior to the adoption of the Practice Book Rules in 1976 have been Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45 (enacted in 1784 and essentially unchanged to this day), and the original constitutional provision mandating prosecution by indictment for capital offenses.

II. Constitutional Grand Jury

A. Grand Jury Clause of United States Constitution

The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, except in certain military cases, “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”[20] While the Fifth Amendment's grand jury indictment clause imposes certain constraints on prosecutions in federal courts,[21] this provision of the Bill of Rights has not been incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Lanfranco v. Murray, 313 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir. 2002); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 n.25 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534-35 (1884));[22] Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1118 (2d Cir. 1990). [23] “The Hurtado case has been followed or accepted as authoritative in a long line of decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 273 (1948).

B. Constitutional Grand Jury in Connecticut

When Connecticut’s constitution was originally adopted in 1818, it required that prosecutions for certain offenses be commenced by grand jury indictment: “And no person shall be holden to answer for any crime, the punishment of which may be death or imprisonment for life, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury; except in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war, or public danger.” Conn. Const. art. 1, § 9 (1818).[24] From 1818 until 1982, that provision remained substantially unchanged.[25] All persons charged with a crime punishable on conviction by death or life imprisonment had a constitutional right to a grand jury determination that there was probable cause to believe the charge before being required to stand trial.

This requirement for grand jury screening of capital charges was eliminated from the Connecticut Constitution in 1982, and replaced with a requirement for a preliminary hearing as a result of a state-wide voter referendum.[26] The amendment provides in relevant part, that: “Section 8 of article first of the constitution is amended to read as follows: .... No person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless upon probable cause shown at a hearing in accordance with procedures prescribed by law....” (Emphasis added.)

The Constitutional Amendment contemplated a probable cause hearing “in accordance with procedures contemplated by law.” However, on November 24, 1982, the date the Amendment was certified by the Secretary of State, there was neither statutory nor Practice Book “procedures” in place and the legislation establishing a statutory right to grand jury indictment, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45, had not yet been repealed.[27] The Supreme Court resolved the issues of the effective dates of the new legislation in State v. Sanabria, 192 Conn. 671 (1984), which held that although amendment seventeen became a part of the constitution on November 24, 1982, it did not take effect until May26, 1983, the effective date of enabling legislation, and that defendants’ right to a probable cause hearing did not vest until that date. All defendants, therefore, who were indicted before May 26, 1983, had no right to any further pretrial determination of probable cause.[28]

The repeal of the grand jury provision of article first, § 8 of the constitution, however, did not simultaneously nullify the statutory grand jury provisions that complemented the former article. See Conn. Gen. Gen. Stat. § 54-45. It merely substituted a constitutionally mandated court determination of probable cause for what had been a constitutionally mandated grand jury indictment. The legislature’s authority to enact a statute providing for grand jury indictment, as § 54-45 did, did not depend on the repealed constitutional provision. Subsequently, portions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45 [29] were repealed in 1983 and put in place as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-46a, a statutory provision establishing procedures for a probable cause hearing for persons charged with crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment.

III. Common Law Investigatory Grand Jury

The grand jury is a creature of common law and was adopted by statute in Connecticut long before it was mandated by the first constitution in 1818.[30] Grand jury procedure has been almost entirely governed by the common law in Connecticut.[31] Throughout this period, there also existed a statutory right to a grand jury indictment as a precondition to trial for such offenses. Before the 1983 amendments, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45 (b) provided, in relevant part: “No person shall be put to plea or held to trial for any crime the punishment of which may be death or imprisonment for life unless an indictment has been found against him for such crime by a grand jury legally impaneled and sworn....”

IV. Statutory Investigatory Inquiry (“One Man Grand Jury”)[32]

A. Overview

In comparison to indicting grand juries, which have long existed at common law, the investigatory grand jury is purely a creature of statute.[33] Originally enacted in 1941,[34] the legislature instituted far-reaching procedural reforms in 1985.[35] Because the investigatory grand jury has no common law power, its powers necessarily are limited by the language of the enabling statute which authorizes its creation, now codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-47a through 54-47i.[36]

This statute provides for grand jury inquiries by one or more judges of the Superior Court, who sit as grand jurors and exercise the same powers as the common-law investigative grand jury, except for the absence of authority to return indictments. The One Man Grand Jury has supplanted the common-law grand jury because of its greater attractiveness as a prosecutorial investigatory tool. The statutory procedure permits the prosecutor to apply directly for the convening of the grand jury; to attend the proceedings accompanied by investigatory staff; to question witnesses directly in the absence of counsel; and to retain control over the charging decision, since grand jurors conducting a judicial inquiry are without authority to make formal accusations. The One Man Grand Jury has enormous power to compel the attendance of virtually any person or object it deems relevant to the subject it was convened to investigate at the behest of the prosecutor and his investigatory staff. Accordingly, it has been hailed by prosecutors as an important, even necessary tool for the investigation of sophisticated, complex criminal schemes when there is good reason for believing that a crime has been committed, but no apparent demonstration that it has.[37]

Supporters of the judicial inquiry contend that it is a superior alternative to the common-law investigative grand jury, since the judge-juror can be expected to exert greater control over the proceedings, and since its activities (most notably, the decision to issue a report) are subject to the supervision and review of the Superior Court. On the other hand, those critical of the inquiry stress that judges, even appointed judges, are more subject to political pressures than a panel of anonymous laymen;[38] that in a non-inquisitorial system such as ours, it is improper and ultimately damaging to judicial prestige to cast judges in an investigative rather than a deliberative role; and that a grand jury composed of professional jurists sacrifices the vital democratic characteristic of an institution traditionally composed of ordinary citizens. Despite repeated constitutional challenges, neither the state nor federal courts have demonstrated any willingness to tamper with the scope or conduct of a statutory judicial inquiry.[39]

An investigating grand jury is not engaged in an adversary proceeding. Neither is an indicting grand jury. The distinction between the two is that “[g]rand-juries [of the indicting type] do not try, but enquire; they do not condemn, but only accuse....” State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn. 272, 280 (1851). Investigating grand juries neither try nor condemn nor accuse; they only inquire and report. [40]

B. Subpoena Powers

The attendance of witnesses and the production of documents at such investigation may be compelled by subpoena. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47f (b).

C. Right to be Present in the Grand Jury Room

The right to be present in the grand jury room during the interrogation of witnesses was first accorded a suspect in Lung’s Case, 1 Conn. 428 (1815), and has been continued by the “liberality of [the Connecticut] practice’ State v. Fasset, 16 Conn. 457, 468 (1844), up to the present time.[41] “While the accused is not, as a matter of right, entitled to be present within the grand jury room, in practice ... he is allowed the privilege of being present in the grand jury room during the taking of evidence by the grand jury although not during their deliberations.”[42]

D. Presence of Counsel before Grand Jury

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47f (d) presently states: “At the hearing, the official conducting the investigation shall inform the witness that he has the right to have counsel present and to consult with such counsel.” However, there is no reported decision indicating that the witness has the right to counsel inside the hearing room itself.[43] “It is well established that an accused person has no constitutional right to the presence of counsel before a grand jury. ... This is ‘the settled law of this state.’... Lung’s Case, 1 Conn. 428 (1815). Federal authorities take the same view.” State v. Canady, 187 Conn. 281, 289-90 (1982) (Citations omitted.)[44] “[T]he state’s attorney submits a list of witnesses, but neither he nor any counsel for the accused is in the grand jury room.... The grand jury proceedings ... are conducted in secret.” State v. Coffee, 56 Conn. 399, 410 (1888). “Recently, we had occasion to examine the grand jury procedure in this state, in State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 274 (1970. In that case, we reaffirmed that an accused has no right to the presence of counsel during the proceedings.” See State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 282-83 (1966).”[45]

Although the issue of the right to counsel is a question of federal constitutional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the grand jury is not a “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding under Connecticut law, nor does the suspect become “the accused” until an indictment is returned against him. Stallings, id. [46]As summarized by the Second Circuit: “If ....every suspect whose case is before the grand jury, is granted the right to be accompanied by his counsel while he is in the grand jury room, it would inevitably and speedily follow that the State’s Attorney would also be granted the right to be there to present the State’s case. The Connecticut grand jury would thereupon become an adversary proceeding, and it would entirely lose its character and purpose. We do not find that there is any constitutional mandated which requires or permits the petitioner to have his attorney with him when petitioner exercises his right to be present in the jury room during the questioning of witnesses by the Connecticut grand jury.” Cobbs v. Robinson, 528 F.2d 1331, 1340 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 947 (1976).

E. Rules of Evidence

The Connecticut Code of Evidence is explicitly made inapplicable to an investigatory grand jury.[47] Moreover, because such a jury seeks only to find “probable cause,” its proceedings are not governed by any other “technical rules” of evidence.[48]

F. Alternate Jurors

Several alternate jurors may be added to the grand jury panel, in the discretion of the court.[49]

G. Guidance from Federal Law

Connecticut courts have traditionally sought guidance from federal case law on issues involving grand jury proceedings.[50]

H. Immunity from Prosecution

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47a empowers a state’s attorney to grant immunity from prosecution in order to obtain testimony from a reluctant witness. The protection from prosecution is coextensive with the privilege of immunity and completely fulfills all federal constitutional requirements.[51] The immunity is intended to provide witnesses compelled to testify in criminal proceedings against others with protection at least equivalent to that available under the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.[52] The protection afforded by this provision, like that inherent in the privilege, is expressly restricted to the immunized witness. Historically, the statute has been used only for prosecution witnesses, and courts have routinely rejected claims that the immunity should also be granted to a defense witness.[53]

I. Handwriting Exemplars

Neither the Fifth Amendment for the Fourth Amendment protects a witness before a grand jury from submitting handwriting exemplars. In re Fernandez, 31 Conn. Supp. 53 (1974).

J. Secrecy of Proceedings

As a matter of history, grand jury proceedings have always been presumptively secret.[54] The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated: “We have not in the past distinguished between investigating and indicting grand juries in recognizing the need to encourage citizen cooperation which underlies the expectation that grand juries normally operate in secrecy. We decline to do so now.”[55] The traditional secrecy of grand jury proceedings is well entrenched in the common law - “older than our Nation itself.”[56] Historically, the only exceptions to this rule of grand jury secrecy have been in a trial for perjury committed by a witness before the grand jury, or impeachment of a witness at trial who has testified differently from his grand jury testimony. State v. Fasset, 16 Conn. 457, 467 (1844).

The secrecy of the testimony obtained during proceedings before the grand jury remain inviolate unless, in the discretion of the court, it is persuaded that statements made are inconsistent with statements made at trial, or that testimony is needed to impeach a witness or to attack the credibility of a witness.[57] In determining whether to pierce the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in cases where the testimony of a witness at trial is different from his testimony before the grand jury, the court may consider the extent to which other evidence can adequately provide the jury with the theory that the introduction of the grand jury testimony would provide.[58]

Grand jury proceedings have repeatedly been exempted from recently expanded rights of public access to public records and proceedings. Although constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and freedom of speech provide public access to many governmental proceedings, these constitutional rights do not apply to proceedings before grand juries.[59] The constitution confers upon a defendant in a criminal case the right to a public trial, and hence affords access to the public, but no such right pertains to the inquiry of an investigatory grand jury, which is not a criminal proceeding.[60] The Freedom of Information Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-7, et seq., expressly exempts records that pertain to “the detection or investigation of crime.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-19 (b) (3).

K. Testimony of Accused during Grand Jury Proceedings

Since the grand jury does not consider the guilt or innocence of the accused but only determines whether he or she should stand trial, the accused is not allowed to testify or to introduce evidence tending to prove his innocence except insofar as his questioning of the state’s witnesses may disclose the weakness of the state’s case.[61]

L. Transcript of Indicting Grand Jury

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45a (b), which governs indicting grand juries, expressly prohibits subsequent use of the witness’s testimony in the state’s case-in-chief.[62] This section applies to grand jury proceedings ordered pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-45, which, while still “on the books,” has been essentially supplanted by the probable cause hearing established by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-46a (after the 1982 constitutional amendment which provided for such a hearing in lieu of grand jury indictment). Thus, by its terms, § 54-45a (b) does not apply to investigatory grand juries appointed in accordance with § 54-47a, et seq.

M. Transcript of Investigatory Grand Jury

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g governs the disclosure of and access to the record of the investigation. A hearing is required to determine whether disclosure of the transcripts is in the public interest.[63] Investigatory grand jury’s records are open to the public unless the court orders that all or a part of such records not be disclosed. Even where such nondisclosure order is entered, witnesses may obtain the record of their own testimony, unless the court finds that the best interests of justice do not permit it. The accused also has a right to a record of his own testimony. Any person aggrieved by an order of the investigatory grand jury has an immediate right to appeal such order to the appellate court.[64]

N. Findings and Record of Investigatory Grand Jury

Within sixty days of the conclusion of the investigation, the investigatory grand jury is to file its findings with the court. The findings and record include the report of the grand juror, the transcript and documentation submitted to the grand juror.[65] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g (a) authorizes “any person” to file an application with the grand jury panel for disclosure of any part of the record and empowers the panel to grant such application if, after notice and a hearing, it determines, by a majority vote, that disclosure would be in the public interest.[66]

O. Public Disclosure of Investigatory Grand Jury Findings

The legislative genealogy of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g reveals a distinct trend away from the policy of rigid nondisclosure in grand jury matters. Prior to the 1985 legislative changes, the authority to release grand jury reports was vested in the Superior Court:[67] In 1985, a grand jury “panel”[68] was empowered, by majority vote, to disclose the findings and record upon a determination that such disclosure would be in the “public interest.”[69] The standard for release prior to the 1985 amendment was “a particularized need.”[70]

In 1988, the legislature cut back even further on the confidentiality of the grand juror’s findings and conclusions by establishing, in effect, a rebuttable presumption of disclosure. The amendment provided, in relevant part, that “the finding of the investigation shall be open to public inspection and copying ... seven calendar days after it has been filed, unless within that period the chief state’s attorney or a state’s attorney ... [requests] that a part or all of such finding not be so disclosed. The finding may include all or such part of the record as the investigatory grand jury may determine....”[71]

P. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by State’s Attorney

The state’s attorney may be allowed to receive the record and transcripts of the grand jury proceedings upon request and without a hearing. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g (a).[72]

Q. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by Witness

A witness may be allowed access to the transcript of his own testimony, regardless of whether there has been an order of nondisclosure. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g (f).

R. Access to Transcript of Proceedings by Defendant

A defendant also has an absolute right to obtain the transcript of his own testimony, regardless of whether there has been an order of nondisclosure. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-47g (g). However, a criminal defendant is not entitled to the transcripts of testimony of any and all grand jury witnesses on demand. “ ‘A defendant has no absolute right to inspect investigative grand jury testimony for the purpose of assisting him in preparation of a defense.’ State v. Waterman, 7 Conn. App. 326, 345, cert. denied, 200 Conn. 807 (1986).” State v. Rado, 14 Conn. App. 322, 331 (1987).[73]

S. Use of Defendant’s Testimony from an Investigatory Grand Jury

The State’s right of access to the testimony of a grand jury witness includes the right to use that testimony in its case-in-chief in a subsequent criminal prosecution of that witness.[74] Such use by the State of the defendant’s testimony would not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself, where the defendant was advised of his rights immediately prior to testifying before the grand jury, including his Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer any question if doing so would have tended to incriminate him.[75] The trial court is not required to find that such disclosure is in the public interest in a subsequent prosecution, since the State has the absolute right to obtain the grand jury testimony from the clerk of the court. The State’s use of the defendant’s testimony given in such proceedings.

[1] Compare a petit jury, usually consisting of 6 or 12 persons, summoned and impaneled in the trial of a specific case. Also termed petty jury; trial jury; common jury.

[2] See generally, 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand Jury.

[3] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 522 (quoting Jones v. Robbins, 74 Mass. 329, 344 (8 Gray) (1867).

[4] Morse, A Survey of the Grand Jury System, 10 Ore. L. Rev. 101, 110 (1931).

[5] Note, The Grand Jury as an Investigatory Body, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 590 (1961); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury (1906).

[6] See Milton Nahum & Lewis Schatz, The Grand Jury in Connecticut, 5 Conn. B.J. 111 (1931).

[7] Day, Preface to Connecticut Reports, 1 Conn. ix (1817).

[8] 1 Col. Rec. 91; Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 267-68 (1948).

[9] 5 Col. Rec. 238.

[10] Prior to 1784, there was no constitutional or statutory requirement in Connecticut for an indictment by a grand jury as the basis for the trial of one accused by a crime, whatever the nature of the offense. Neither the fundamental orders of 1683, nor the Bill of Rights

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am so glad I found this site
Yes indeed, the Ct Judicial Branch
is the most corrupt.
Do you know they transfered 5 Spanish Interpreters that have been
working there for over 20 years
an now they are cashiers and office helpers.
But I wonder , where was the Union ?
Nowhere to be found

Saturday, September 20, 2008 11:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats