{"id":344,"date":"2013-09-24T12:37:38","date_gmt":"2013-09-24T17:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=344"},"modified":"2017-11-20T20:25:03","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T01:25:03","slug":"organizers-reinstate-common-law-grand-juries-in-pennsylvania","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2013\/09\/24\/organizers-reinstate-common-law-grand-juries-in-pennsylvania\/","title":{"rendered":"Organizers \u201cReinstate\u201d Common Law Grand Juries in Pennsylvania"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>
Photo courtesy of www.news4jax.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\n

by: Justin Norris, Staff Writer<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Organizers in nineteen of Pennsylvania\u2019s counties have gathered to \u201cturn back the judicial clock to 1789\u201d by reinstating common law grand juries.\u00a0 Most notable, meetings have sprouted up in Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland counties to introduce the concept of the common law grand jury and seek a vote for its reinstatement.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

National Liberty Alliance, based in New York, has been the major proponent of this movement.\u00a0 Their mission is to institute a common law grand jury across each of 3,141 counties in the United States.\u00a0 According to their website, the duty of the common law grand jury is to expose fraud and corruption whether it is in the judicial or political realm.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Proponents of common law grand juries look to a 1992 United States Supreme Court opinion to confirm their legitimacy.\u00a0 In U.S. v. Williams, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion that, \u201cthe whole theory of [a grand jury\u2019s] function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.\u201d<\/span>[1]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Supporters claim that the common law grand jury is, in effect, a fourth branch of government co-ordinate with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

John Darash, of the National Liberty Alliance, commented on the diminution of grand juries today.\u00a0 In an online broadcast, he said, \u201cright now the grand jury are people who are paid.\u00a0 They get a government paycheck.\u00a0 They\u2019re controlled by the Courts and the prosecutor gets to bring the cases, not the grand jury.\u201d<\/span>[2]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 He continued, \u201c[grand juries] don\u2019t seek out cases.\u00a0 They don\u2019t look for justice.\u201d\u00a0 What powers the common law grand jury would have\u2014that current grand juries do not have\u2014is the ability to subpoena witnesses, summon grand jury meetings, and make accusations from independent investigations.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, some officials question whether common law grand juries would have any legal standing.\u00a0 Lackawanna County District Attorney, Andy Jarbola, told a Times-Tribune reporter that such a group would not have any authority nor would they be able to subpoena anyone.<\/span>[3]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, Duquesne University School of Law associate professor, Wesley Oliver, echoed similar sentiments suggesting that a formal process in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has replaced the common law process that once was used in federal courts.<\/span><\/span>[4]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Both critics and proponents though have not made clear whether these grand juries would operate on a state or federal level.\u00a0 In the federal arena, supporters of common law grand juries argue that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure<\/span>[5]<\/span><\/a> have anesthetized some of the rights that are inherent in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. \u00a0Specifically, they suggest that grand juries are empowered to act independently of courts and to maintain full use of their investigatory powers. \u00a0The Supreme Court has hinted as much. Yet, the Court has not specified whether the independence of the grand jury refers to a prohibition on courts and prosecutors from interfering with grand jury decisions or something much broader.<\/span>[6]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

More important, proponents look to the time of the adoption of the Fifth Amendment as justification for the grand juries broader powers.\u00a0 Before the American Revolution, colonial grand juries served broader political functions.\u00a0 They not only investigated criminal activity, but also managed municipal operations.\u00a0 Road-building, bridge maintenance, and the operation of local jails were all a part of the grand jury\u2019s oversight power.\u00a0 However, as administrative agencies began to manage local activities, the need for a grand jury to oversee public affairs diminished. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Court has not held that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional in how they regulate grand juries.\u00a0 If anything, the Court has authorized changes to the Federal Rules to guard against corrupting practices or prosecutorial misconduct.\u00a0 For example, an amendment to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that prosecutors be recorded during these proceedings.\u00a0 Moreover, the textual language of the Fifth Amendment limits grand jury powers to the indictment of federal felonies; nothing mentions the powers with which grand juries were invested during the American colonial era. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite the limited scope of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has been clear on one thing: the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states.<\/span>[7]<\/span><\/a> The perplexing question then is why supporters of common law grand juries have organized at the county level rather than at the federal district court level.\u00a0 Perhaps some believe that the \u201ccommon law grand jury\u201d system will operate on a county-wide level in their respective states and that, despite court precedent, they believe the Fifth Amendment still applies to the states. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, many states have been playing by their own rules, which the Supreme Court has regarded as constitutional.\u00a0 Indictments may be raised in any manner the states devise.\u00a0 In some states, statutes govern the operation of a grand jury.\u00a0 For example, Pennsylvania\u2019s Consolidated Statutes Annotated \u00a7<\/span><\/span> 4543 provides that a grand jury may be impaneled either through the initiative of the attorney general\u2019s office or through the president judge of the court of common pleas.<\/span>[8]<\/span><\/a> \u00a0Thus, \u201cin no case shall the investigating grand jury inquire into alleged offenses on its own motion.\u201d<\/span>[9]<\/a>\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Other states have given the legislature the power to abolish the grand jury or to modify.<\/span>[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Ten states have given their legislatures the power to abolish grand juries, while one state has given the courts the power to abolish the indicting grand jury (Pennsylvania).\u00a0 Still, twenty-two states explicitly deny legislatures, or courts, the power to abolish grand juries, and some stipulate that the grand jury must be used for certain offences. And yet, others neither deny, nor require, the grand jury.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Looking at how states authorize grand jury powers demonstrates that the movement sponsored by the National Liberty Alliance will need more than a blanket strategy.\u00a0 Even if a more nuanced campaign existed for common law grand juries, organizers would ultimately have to change the laws in their state through their legislatures or invoke some other constitutional mechanism such as a referendum or state constitutional amendment.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet, proponents argue that their state and federal legislatures are corrupt, which requires the need for common law grand juries\u2014to put these politicians out of business.\u00a0 These arguments are not new.\u00a0 In the 1970\u2019s, a group known as the Posse Comitatus, who rejected authority above the county level, appointed their own judges and ambassadors after organizing a town known as the \u201cConstitutional Township of Tigerton Dells\u201d in Wisconsin.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As Daniel Lessard Levin noted in his article, A Law Unto Themselves: The Ideology of the Common Law Movement<\/i>, \u201cThis idea, they claim, derives from English common law and all legal powers in the office of the sheriff, while power to interpret the law is placed in \u2018common law associations and Christian grand juries, composed of only white, Christian males.\u2019 Posse members believe that the only legitimate law was divinely given in the Bible and manifested in the United States in the Articles of Confederation and Constitution, which restate that divine law.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The National Liberty Alliance has derived similar theories.\u00a0 On their website, they offer classes on the Constitution and the common law that espouse these theories.<\/span>[11]<\/a>\u00a0 They also provide courses on how to access courts without an attorney and how individuals can represent themselves.<\/span>[12]<\/a>\u00a0 The next question, however, is whether the National Liberty Alliance or their organizers intend to represent themselves if judges ignore their bills of indictment and whether they see this as important to their strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/90-1972.ZO.html<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/www.talkshoe.com\/talkshoe\/web\/episodePop.jsp?episodeId=738152&cmd=epipop<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/thetimes-tribune.com\/news\/group-pushes-for-common-law-grand-jury-1.1544761<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/triblive.com\/news\/westmoreland\/4690304-74\/grand-jury-law#axzz2fd4qUipF<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/rules\/frcrmp\/rule_6<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/410\/1\/case.html<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/110\/516\/case.html<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.legis.state.pa.us\/WU01\/LI\/LI\/CT\/HTM\/42\/00.045.043.000..HTM<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/www.legis.state.pa.us\/WU01\/LI\/LI\/CT\/HTM\/42\/00.045.048.000..HTM<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/span><\/a> http:\/\/campus.udayton.edu\/~grandjur\/stategj\/abolish.htm<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/span><\/a>http:\/\/nationallibertyalliance.org\/judicial\/constitution\/course.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/span><\/a>http:\/\/nationallibertyalliance.org\/judicial\/court\/access.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by: Justin Norris, Staff Writer Organizers in nineteen of Pennsylvania\u2019s counties have gathered to \u201cturn back the judicial clock to 1789\u201d by reinstating common law grand juries.\u00a0 Most notable, meetings have sprouted up in Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland counties to introduce the concept of the common law grand jury [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":346,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=344"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":347,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/344\/revisions\/347"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}