martes, 26 de agosto de 2014


THE REALITY OF THE JURY IN THE UNITED STATES

G. Thomas Munsterman
Center for Jury Studies. Virginia



ABSTRACT

  It is estimated that each year 70,000 100,000 criminal trials and civil jury trials in state and federal courts of the United States are performed. This requires that convened approximately 15 million people each year to act as jurors. In most countries, including England, from which the concept of trial by jury picks, and not the jury for civil cases is used. The proportion of criminal jury trials in England is about one third of the United States. In the United States, attempts to reduce the use of juries in civil cases have provoked resistance, although local efforts have Political Psychology 86, No. 20, achieved in May 2000 in some cities civil jury trials are reduced. Much of civil or criminal cases are resolved without a jury trial. Only about 3% of all they get to jury (NCSC, 1997). The Jury trials, involving a small number of total registered cases occur in those who can not otherwise be resolved or are of such importance, as may result in a death penalty sentence, which necessitates a decision community.

In a survey of Americans conducted in 1999, respondents were completely safe from American justice system (M / A / R / C Research, 1999). Eighty percent of respondents agreed with the statement that "despite its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world." The report goes on to indicate that the roots of this support seems to be in the jury system.

Thus, more than three quarters, 78% say it is the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence and more than two thirds, 69%, believe that juries are the most important part of the justice system. The report notes that, contrary to previous research, knowledge and experience in the justice system seems to influence public confidence. A positive experience of the jury increases a person's confidence in the jury system. Of those who have been judges, 40% said their experience was very good or excellent. Only 7% said not to be very satisfied with your experience as a juror. Due to the efforts of the courts to distribute participation among the largest possible part of the population, the experience of the jury is an important public confidence in the judicial system factor. According to the previously cited study and a 1999 survey, approximately 24% of all respondents had ever been sworn (NCSC, 1999). In fact, the latest study shows that participation in the jury system has increased over the last 16 years from 16% to 24%. The share is much higher in jurisdictions that use a system of trial by jury day. Jurors who act first are less than tercio1 / 3 of all registered. What have the courts to broaden participation in the jury? In the last decades of the last century is when major improvements are made in the jury system in the United States. In fact remained virtually unchanged until about 1960 Although trials were increasingly complex and lasted longer, the rest of the jury system was relatively intact. With the civil rights movement important changes.

The main objective Reality Jury in the United Kingdom has been to improve the representation of all racial and ethnic groups in the jury and the initial panels from which juries are selected. We used various forms.

First, the list of names used for jury selection has been changed since to allow courts to elect persons hand, require random selection down to the use of ready-base.

Second, it began using the lists of registered voters and later lists driver's licenses, or added new lists. More than half of the states used combined lists of voters and drivers. States are now incorporating lists tax rate, social security and unemployment reach to include all sectors of the community. What we want to achieve is not only a cross-selection of citizens, but also to have a list or lists that include the largest possible number of people. Thus the educational value of the Jury, previously mentioned, and the same obligation of jury duty is distributed among a larger population. Although he promoted many of the changes in the jury system was the desire to be more democratic, however, we must recognize that the availability of technology made ​​it possible. Large lists of potential jurors required computers handled these files. When many lists are basically used computers to identify and cancel duplicate names that appear in more than one list is required. This ensures that people have the same probability of being selected as a juror. Similarly computerization allows the registration of persons seeking to be postponed his service as jurors.

To soften the duty of every person, many courts in the United States use a service called judgment day. This is now applied in approximately 40% of the population. In this system, a person is asked to report to the court to act as jury for only a day, unless it is selected and has committed as a juror in a particular trial. If selected juror serves until the verdict of the jury or the trial ends otherwise delivered. At this time, he has fulfilled his jury duty again until it is selected randomly, probably many years later. Because the jury selection process, you need to call about three times as many people as are necessary for the jury; this means that two thirds of people who report for jury concluded its obligation in a day and a third does during the duration of a trial in the United States usually average two or three days.

To facilitate all people act as jurors, court rescheduled the date of the report of the people for the most convenient for jurors and your company time. In fact, most companies continue to pay the salaries of people working in the Jury.

In some states it is required by law. The amount received by the jurors who serve in the courts of the United States varies from 5 to 50 $ per day. Most courts pay a small amount, less than the minimum wage set federally, which potentially covers the cost of food, accommodation and transport. In some states, the costs for the care of children with some courts that have resources for child care in the courthouse are also paid.

But what happens when you call for a person? Receive a citation that sets them a date for jury report. Usually a questionnaire to be completed and submitted to the court is attached. You are asked about their ability to be sworn; if they are American citizens, if they are resident in the neighborhood of the court, ability to understand English, who meet the minimum age, usually 18 years, and if you have been convicted of a crime, if you already have restored their civil rights . Also can be asked in the questionnaire if there is any reason that they can not serve as jurors because of physical or economic difficulties. You may be asked if another date is best for you. Early in the history of the United States, juries were usually formed by good men hand-picked. These honorees have time available to act as jurors. They were making efforts to expand participation to all persons with legal exemptions for certain professions that eased the difficulties of the community. For example, if the medical community have to travel far to go to the courthouse and stay there a long period of time, the community would be left without the necessary medical attention. However, at present the list of exemptions has become a political issue. Legislators pass laws exemption for a particular profession as a response to the political support received.

Long lists of exemptions suggest that jury service was not for everyone and it was not a serious duty. Now a majority of states have eliminated all exemptions from jury service and all citizens can be called. In the state of New York after the suppression of such lists both the judge of the superior courts of appeal and the Governor was required to act as jurors. Reality Advertising Jury in the United States ... 89 this generated, helped convince the reluctant citizens that jury duty is a responsibility of all people.

From all citations approximately 25% to 40% of those inform as prompted. For the sake of description, I will use an example of a typical urban court in which 25% answered the summons. In a court of its kind, is typically 25% of citations are returned unresolved by the postal service. Despite efforts to use updated lists, voter lists and drivers are updated according to a person who votes or every 4 years, or a person who renews his license within the required 5 years. In areas of high mobility, lists quickly become dated.

Another 35% is disabled rather well for the reasons given above, or are exonerated. The last 15% did not answer. In some cases, acts intentionally thinking that nothing will happen, other people simply forget, some are due to delivery difficulties such as when a family member is away, perhaps a student in college and the mail is not forwarded as the court requires. The courts monitors nonrespondents, about half are easily recovered with a simple reminder.

In a study of people who did not respond to the jury summons interesting questions (Boatright, 1998) were discovered. Those who did not respond were more reluctant to court. Not differ from those who had responded if his feelings for jury duty, the need for citizens to serve on a jury, and juries reflect the population. However, they were less knowledgeable about how to get an excuse or deferral of duty to a more convenient date. The main factors that distinguish each other, was the belief that nothing would happen if you simply ignore the summons and was likely
that their companies did not pay them.

The method of selection of the jury panel of potential jurors is almost as varied as the thousands of judges who direct the jury trials. The selection or "voir dire" begins with the oath that make potential jurors to tell the truth in the questions put to him. These questions can make the lawyers and the judge or the judge only. If the judge directs the selection, the parties through their attorneys may suggest to the judge any questions. The questions can be formulated in a survey or orally can ask all the jurors. The questions are usually privately answer sensitive the court or away from the other jurors.

This issue of the privacy of the jury is a matter of concern in the United States enough. Some courts are restricting Political Psychology 90, personal information available to the parties. Normally this information refers to data about the address of the person, or your workplace. In some trials where the possibility of harm to the jurors, the courts will not reveal the names of the jurors. Although these cases are usually very rare, highly value this judges protecting your privacy. This desire for privacy is balanced with the need for a public and open trial.

In jury selection, potential jurors may ask to be excused for personal reasons or the parties may request to be excluded for cause. A challenge for cause is based on the belief of the parties that the member of the prospective juror can not be fair and impartial because of experience or due to a stated belief.
The judge after hearing the reason for the challenge, can ask other questions
the juror and determine whether the jury excludes the person. In most cases, tend to be few challenges for cause and most attorneys do not spend much time on this.

Each party also has a limited number of peremptory challenges for which can excuse a juror (see table). These do not require any reason for use. However, in 1986 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a peremptory challenge may not be used by the state to exclude an individual, if the reason is based on race (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986). Subsequent court decisions have extended this and sex is also included, and restrictions apply to all parties and civil and criminal cases.

Table. Innovations. Number of challenges in state court permitted peremptory Rejections Ma Lo Fashion Felony (not capital) 2036..; Misdemeanor 1023; 823 civil

Note: The mode is the most widely used value. Many believe that the Batson decision meant the end of the peremptory challenge and many lawyers, judges and study groups have advocated the reduction or elimination of the challenges (CEC, 1998). However, this change will be slow, because there is strong resistance to this change.

Two publications widely read by judges and court staff are completely dedicated to the issues of reform and improvement of the Jury (Judges Journal, Judicature 1997 and 1996). The reforms in the courts of the United States in the last 30 years have been classified into three groups (ABA, 1997). The first group consists of administrative reforms. These include the aforementioned efforts to get a ready source or more representative of the population, to reduce the duration of jury service and eliminate exemptions depending on the profession. The second type are structural reforms. An example is the legislative requirement that companies pay their employees for the time exercising as jurors. In 1979 Massachusetts restructured its jury system. He adopted the system of trial by day. Exemptions were abolished, companies that pay their employees while acting as jurors were required, allowed the jury the right to a continuance and change fees at all in the first three days at $ 50.00 per day thereafter. Also, people without jobs while performing jury are paid, which may include child care, meals and transportation. This change was significant for two reasons. First, it is intended to make it feasible for all persons engaged as jurors. Second, suppresses the fees paid to jurors, and gives a fixed amount to each person quotas distributed among people with major difficulties, the unemployed and those who must act in lengthy trials. This structure has been adopted by Connectica Colorado and in other states have adopted some specific aspects.

To reduce costs, many states have reduced the size of juries used in misdemeanor and civil cases; some are rethinking soften the requirement for unanimity jury verdicts. The size of the jury varies from 6 to 12 members and 34 states do not require unanimous verdicts in civil cases. However, most states allow non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. These changes were based on the defense of the Supreme Court of the United States that jurors need not be 12 people and must be unanimous (Williams v Florida, 1970;. Colgrove v Battin., 1973).

The last set of reforms is of a procedural nature. These are mostly court reforms that change the procedures used. The state of Arizona has pioneered this type of change. The reforms made ​​are based largely or report prepared by Judge B. Michael Dann (1993).

In that report, Judge Dann proposed that an educational model jury process were applied instead of the traditional judicial model. This means making a more active and less passive jury. He suggested, for example, the jury must be instructed when the judgment as widely as possible, that jurors be allowed to take notes, the parties allow jurors to ask questions of a witness with the review of the judge, and enable them to discuss the evidence prior to deliberation. These and other suggestions have aroused great interest in the United States. Arizona (1995), California (1996) and New York (1998) have produced reports on the integrity of the jury system serving in those states. Recommendations for improvements ranging from changes in initial lists are made, establish the fee and penalties for not meeting until the reforms within the tribunal already mentioned before. Since then, 28 other states have done some similar type of reform. According to this activity is obvious that the momentum of the late twentieth century will continue in the 21st century is expected further reforms to strengthen this institution that is as important for the citizens of the United States.

references

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) Boatright, R.G. (1998): Improving Citizen Response to Jury Summonses. A.J.S. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 US 149, 1973 Council for Court Excellence (1998): Juries for the Year 2000 and Beyond. Washington. Dann, BM (1993): Learning Lessons' and 'Speaking Rights': Creating Educated and Democratic Juries, 68 Ind LJ1229.. Judges Journal (1997): Reshaping the Bedrock of Democracy. A.B.A. Vol. No.4 36. Judicature (1996), March-April, Vol. No. 5 79 American Judicature Society. M / A / R / C Research (1999): Perceptions of the US Justice System. Feb. A.B.A. National Center for State Courts (1998): Examining the Work of the State Courts, NCSC 1997. National Center for State Courts (1999): How the Public Views the State Courts, A 1999 Survey. Williams v NCSC. Florida, U.S. 78 399, 1970


G. Thomas Munsterman Director of Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, over twenty years ago. Expert in the management and administration systems jurors, and counsel in many states and federal courts. Currently he is developing, among other projects, a major research on the reform of the jury in Arizona. National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA.

SYSTEM OF JURY INDICTMENT IN USA

     ( Mike Brown GRAND JURY )

  Overview and Executive Summary.
The type of federalism and the system of laws and rights in the United States leads to a very different legal system in its own structure. This difference is manifested in our jury system. There are three basic types of jury: The Grand Jury ("Grand Jury"), ordinary jury ("Petit Jury") also called the jury trial ("Trial Jury") and the blue ribbon jury ("Blue Ribbon Panel "). The two types of juries in criminal matters are involved grand jury and petit jury and in civil matters, there is only an ordinary jury.
The right to a trial by jury of your peers is the farm system of jurisprudence of the United States. Three of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights of the USA specifically address this issue, namely: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury located in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," (6th Amendment) ; "In civil cases, when there are more controversial than twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," (7th Amendment); and "No one shall be compelled to respond to a capital crime or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentation to a grand jury indictment," (5th Amendment).
The grand jury and a grand jury is based on English Common Law and has origins in the Magna Carta of 1215 when King John of England granted a concession to his subjects that they have the right to a jury of 12 knights were granted or free men from their own communities to do the initial investigation of the crimes may have been committed in the same community. The British colonialists brought the system of grand juries in the United States for at least a century before the Revolution of American Independence in 1776.
Although grand juries are rarely seen outside of the United States today, and while England and most nations of the English common law as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and England itself were deleted most grand juries, their use remains binding in federal criminal trials in the United States as well as in criminal proceedings in more than 40% of state systems in the USA We notice that American jurisdictions statewide have left the grand jury system, has been replaced by a system of preliminary hearings and accusations based on a document called a "tax information."
In the grand jury, which is an integral part of the system of weights and balances, it is determined whether there is sufficient evidence to begin a trial, after an examination of the evidence presented to them by a prosecutor in weighing the sufficiency thereof and when there is reasonable suspicion, probable cause or prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The federal grand jury is very powerful and can compel witnesses to testify before them. Its deliberations are secret, even to the accused himself. And since its only role is to determine whether probable cause exists, the prosecutor usually only presents enough evidence to make this preliminary determination. And while a defendant has an absolute right under the Fifth Amendment not to give self-incriminating testimony, the prosecutor can still call a potential defendant to testify, and forcing some testimonies under full or partial granting of immunity.
The federal grand jury, which must have about 23 members, with 16 members present to constitute a quorum and a minimum of 12 yeas to issue an indictment, usually sit for a period of 18 months and meet at regular intervals. Although formally commissioned by a federal judge, the judge is usually absent during all grand jury proceedings and is the federal prosecutor who interacts with the grand jury. While the grand jury is theoretically independent and instructions and charges are supposed to be somewhat codified and standardized, in fact, prosecutors have a wide latitude and discretion.
The federal grand jury has the power to issue subpoenas for witnesses and / or production of documents or objects. If a witness refuses to comply with the subpoena without lawful justification, or if a witness testifies falsely, may be considered in contempt of court, and is subject to punishment. It shows that it is almost impossible rejected a subpoena from a federal grand jury.
In general, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no absolute right to be allowed to testify before the grand jury, and the prosecutor is not obliged either to submit to the consideration of potential grand jury witnesses or any exculpatory testimony offered by the subject. And as a practical matter, a federal grand jury almost always come back with an indictment in any case brought by a prosecutor.
I. Grand Jury A. Historical Role of grand juries.
Under the common law of England, the grand jury as a buffer between prosecutors and citizens Rey developed. Today, they are the grand juries rarely outside the United States. England and Australia itself abandoned the grand juries in 1930 and New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961 Canada abolished in the 1970s about half of the states in the USA employs today, and only twenty use, to varying degrees is required. Most jurisdictions have abolished the state level to grand juries, replacing them with a system in which a prosecutor may initiate an accusation by a document called a 'information' and if the applicant wants to question or challenge the basis for the prosecution would then be a preliminary hearing at which a judge hears the evidence related to the alleged offenses and makes a judgment on whether the prosecution can proceed.
Based on common law systems like the United States, the grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence alone to begin a trial. The grand juries perform this duty by investigating alleged crimes and crimes and examining evidence and other things presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments after if he deserves. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from an ordinary jury, which is used during a trial. In most jurisdictions, are members of the grand jury of the same pool of potential jurors than any other jury panel, and likewise. The pool usually consists of names culled from the standards, ie multiple databases, such as state voting records, state licensing records of vehicles and lists of public services.
But unlike potential jurors in regular trials, the members of the grand jury if trends are incorrect or injury or other factors are not excluded. Mean to a grand jury to be part of the system of checks and balances to prevent a case goes to trial only by the blind words of a prosecutor. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, that there is reasonable suspicion, probable cause or prima facie case that a crime has been made​​.
B. Power of the Grand Jury.
Juries in federal indictment have enormous power within our criminal justice system. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury, the proceedings are secret; the defendant and his counsel are generally not present to hear the testimony of other witnesses.
In the grand jury, his sentence is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial) or "no true bill" (meaning that there is insufficient evidence to continue). Because the role of the grand jury is to determine only whether there is probable cause, no need tododa jury heard the evidence, or even contradictory testimony. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.
If the grand jury does not indicate a "true bill," the prosecutor can come back to start again, because the double jeopardy does not apply to grand jury. In practice, however, it is very uncommon for a prosecutor not winning in the first instance, back again without good reason and evidence and witnesses.
C. Constitutional Guarantees and Jury Indictment.
In our federal system, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, one at the bottom of our Bill of Rights, requires all federal charges for serious crimes are first presented to a grand jury. We need to know that the constitutionality of the contemporary practices of the grand jury have been brought before the Supreme Court six times in history; however, the Court has not allowed even a case to be heard.
In all jurisdictions in the USA I still have a system of grand juries, a defendant has the right potential under Fifth Amendment self-incrimination testify. However, the prosecutor may ask a potential defendant to testify, and that person will then be required to exercise your right to the Fifth Amendment. And in some states, a witness who testified about crimes he has done can not be prosecuted for those crimes, unless he previously waived immunity. This practice occurs when a prosecutor wants to receive data from the most serious crimes of another co-author.
D. Structure of the Federal Jury Indictment.
Juries in federal indictment with a maximum of 23 members, 16 of whom must be present to form a quorum. The charges are valid for a vote of 12 or more members. Juries in federal prosecution typically sit for a term of 18 months and meet at all (at least weekly) intervals.
Although federal judges to juries selected federal indictment and formally monitored, these same judges do not usually interfere with grand jury investigations and judges remain in the jury room during the questioning of witnesses. The judge only needed for some themes immunities or contempt.
The federal prosecutor, ("The US Attorney") is the government official tasked with the role of relating to the federal grand jury. The federal tax guide all sessions of the grand jury, but he can not testify or be present during grand jury deliberations. The prosecutor prepares charges must be presented to the members of the grand jury at the beginning and end of the session. Also at the beginning jurors receive a handbook for members of the grand jury. It is standardized by the head of the federal courts to use in every cut and every grand jury manual. Many of the instructions given to jurors at the end of the session the prosecutor are also standardized to eliminate inconsistencies possibility although there are still many inconsistencies!
In theory, the grand jury is an independent body, and although the instructions given to the members of the grand jury report that they must think independently, the practical realities of the situation mitigated against that paradigm. The grand jury hears only cases brought by the prosecutor because the prosecutor generally decides whether he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Next, the prosecutor decides which witnesses will testify. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. One theory of the case is created by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor builds his questions on that topic. And although they allow members of the grand jury question witnesses after testimony with the prosecutor, and even occasionally members of the grand jury can be asked if they wanted to hear any additional witnesses, since the role of the jury indictment is only to judge what has been the prosecutor, jurors rarely do such things.
E. Citing witnesses before the Grand Jury.
Federal grand jury subpoenas can be for (a) the testimony, called "subpoena ad testificandum," (b) for documents or objects, called "subpoena duces tecum," or (c) both. The type of citation is obvious from the face of the document, and
You. Could be cited as an individual or as custodian of records for a business entity. It is indicated that a witness who refuses to testify without legal justification is in contempt of court and can be punished by a fine or imprisonment for the remaining term of the grand jury or both. A witness who testifies falsely may also be prosecuted for their falsehoods. The lawyer can not be with his accused in grand jury room, but the lawyer can park outside the room and defendant has the absolute right to consult with him after each question. In fact, the accused may spend as many hours as needed to confer with his lawyer, while the accused is not trying to interrupt the grand jury. In most jurisdictions, the witness can write notes of the questions asked during the session of the grand jury and you can share them later his lawyer. If you cite to testimony in his individual capacity, you can avoid answering substantive questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The right to invoke this privilege is much broader than most people realize. If a response to a question from the grand jury would tend to incriminate him, if the answer could provide a link in the chain that could lead to his conviction, you. You can invoke the privilege and refuse to answer. To wait from being ensnared by an incompetent, misguided or unscrupulous tax, the Supreme Court has told us that the privilege under the Fifth Amendment should protect the innocent himself as the guilty.
A witness is under no obligation to speak with government agents before the grand jury proceedings begin and the government has no authority to force a previous interview. These previous interviews can be dangerous to a witness. Lying to government agents during an interview, such as lying to federal grand jury during any part of the process, is a federal offense. And while there will be a recording and / or an official transcript of the proceedings of the grand jury, no preliminary interview with a government agent will be recorded and why, when there are different memories, and there always will be a case of witness word against the word of a federal prosecutor.
In general, the subject of an investigation by the grand jury has no absolute right to testify unless cited, nor have any right to compel the grand jury hear certain witnesses or evidence. However, if a subject requested an opportunity to testify, the prosecutor general permit, but without any grant of immunity. The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a subject. In federal jury indictment exculpatory evidence need not be presented, but in many state systems exculpatory evidence must be submitted to the grand jury.
Federal prosecutors have the ability in grand juries to introduce hearsay evidence, told by a third party testing and other gals that would not be admissible in an ordinary trial. And if witnesses lying to the grand jury, or use a tax unconstitutionally obtained evidence, the only remedy available to the subject is that you can challenge the evidence at trial and only if the prosecutor seeks to engage the test during the trial.
Is one of the reasons that a subject must exercise its rights under the Fifth Amendment is that he or she can not know whether the prosecutor has presented to the jury that witnesses have lied. The subject can not risk testify contrary to those witnesses because of fear of being charged with criminal falsehoods, "perjury" if the prosecutor does not believe his testimony.
Some federal prosecutors try to quote subjects or witnesses back to the grand jury to testify multiple times. This can be very dangerous for a witness, because he can give sworn testimony inadvertently contrary, allowing the government order to witness two irreconcilable and contradictory statements under oath. And to convict, the government must prove that even one of the statements was false! However, if someone is referred to federal grand jury to testify for a second time, he has the right to review testify before the official transcript of his earlier testimony, to correct any errors, and prepare for the next session.
F. Procedures Federal Jury Indictment.
As a practical matter, a federal grand jury indictment almost always make an accusation in any case brought by a prosecutor. This is the basis for the famous saying of Judge Saul Wachler, the President of the Court in New York, that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "process a ham sandwich."
In conducting investigations, a federal grand jury indictment can do what he wants, except violate certain constitutional privileges. Federal grand jury subpoenas rarely leave and the Supreme Court has said that the federal grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the burden of demonstrating that is unreasonable for the subject. If there is even a drop of reasonable possibility that the category of materials submitted by the government searches relevant to the general subject of the grand jury investigation information, we can not stop the subpoena. Jurors federal grand jury indictment, transcriptionists and prosecutors working with a federal grand jury are under an absolute duty to keep secret all things and those that have occurred before the grand jury. Violations of this rule may result in penalties or criminal contempt. However, the rule of secrecy does not apply to federal grand jury witnesses. If you are a witness before a federal grand jury, you have the right to tell the world about everything from his testimony before the grand jury, although federal prosecutors often try to intimidate witnesses not to disclose his testimony.
II. The blue ribbon juries.

The jury blue ribbon jury is not typical in the sense of a civil or criminal jury. Rather, it is designated for a policy to investigate certain situations or things entity exploratory committee, preparing an essay with their results, and ultimately publishes its recommendations. While criminal charges can be made ​​by a federal or state tax as a result of the evidence given in the report, the most likely outcome is that a legislative body simply take the results and recommend certain changes to the body of existing law. Two of the most famous examples of these jurors would be the "Warren Commission" created after the assassination of President JFK in 1963 and the "Commission of September Eleven" after the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001.