Questions about the investigative process
1)
What is the purpose of a lawyer not being allowed to accompany his/her
client into the grand jury
room?
The basic theory is that
the lawyer will disrupt the process, making objections and sidetracking the
proceedings . . . turning what is an investigative process into a
"mini-trial." The lack of a lawyer does not violate constitutional
prohibitions because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not kick in
until someone has been charged, and grand jury's are the ones who bring
charges . . . so they act pre-charging. Also, the
Supreme Court held,
in U.S. v. Mandujano, that the Miranda right to counsel does not
apply to grand jury
proceedings.
2)What
is a grant of immunity, and who gets it?
It is in essence the government's promise not to use what you say and/or
anything derived from what you say to prosecute you (that is use immunity -
transactional immunity is simply a promise not to prosecute you, at all, for
the offenses about which you testify).
It is given to whomever the government wants to give it to. Witnesses often
negotiate for immunity, raising Fifth Amendment objections until they are
given immunity, after which
they testify.
3)
How can a witness be forced to accept immunity?
A grant of immunity,
according to the Supreme Court, gives you the same protection you have if
you take your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and do
not testify: In either eventuality, what you say cannot be used against
you. Therefore, you cannot refuse immunity, because you are not being
disadvantaged.
4)
Do you think the federal grand jury system needs a reform, if yes, what
should be done?
Download or print the law review article you can access via the first page
of the site, via one of the red buttons on the left hand side of the page,
and you'll get my answers.
5)
Do you think the prosecutor has too much power over the federal grand
jury?
Same as #4.
SWB
2002 |
