Legal Definitions - investigative grand jury

An investigative grand jury is a group of citizens assembled to hear evidence presented by a prosecutor, primarily to determine if there is enough probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and to identify who might be responsible. Unlike a typical grand jury that reviews evidence for an already-identified suspect, an investigative grand jury actively works to uncover information about potential crimes, often complex or widespread ones, before specific charges or suspects are fully established.

This type of grand jury has significant powers, including the ability to:

• Compel witnesses to testify under oath (subpoena power).
• Demand the production of documents, records, and other physical evidence.
• Operate in secrecy to protect the integrity of the investigation and the privacy of those involved until formal charges are filed.

Its primary role is to assist prosecutors in gathering evidence and building a case, especially in situations where the full scope of criminal activity or the identities of all perpetrators are not yet known.

Examples:

• Example 1: Investigating Public Corruption

  A federal prosecutor suspects that several high-ranking officials in a state government agency are involved in a scheme to award lucrative contracts to favored companies in exchange for kickbacks. Instead of having a specific individual already identified for indictment, the prosecutor convenes an investigative grand jury. This grand jury then issues subpoenas for financial records from the companies, emails and communications from the officials, and compels testimony from various employees and contractors. The grand jury's work helps to piece together the full extent of the bribery scheme, identify all participants, and determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against multiple individuals.

  This illustrates an investigative grand jury because its purpose is to actively uncover evidence and identify all parties involved in a complex criminal enterprise, rather than simply reviewing evidence against a single, pre-identified suspect.

• Example 2: Uncovering Organized Crime

  Local law enforcement agencies have received intelligence suggesting a large-scale drug trafficking organization is operating within the city, but they lack concrete evidence to link specific individuals to the leadership of the operation. A district attorney might impanel an investigative grand jury. This grand jury could then subpoena phone records, bank statements, and business ledgers from suspected front companies. They might also compel testimony from lower-level associates who have been granted immunity in exchange for information. Through this process, the grand jury helps the prosecutor map out the hierarchy of the criminal organization, identify its key players, and gather the necessary evidence to secure indictments against those responsible for the drug trafficking.

  This demonstrates an investigative grand jury's role in systematically gathering information and building a case against a complex criminal network, using its powers to compel evidence and testimony to expose the full scope of the illegal activity.

• Example 3: Corporate Fraud Investigation

  After a major financial scandal involving a publicly traded company, federal regulators refer the case to the Department of Justice, suspecting widespread accounting fraud that misled investors. An investigative grand jury is formed to delve into the company's financial practices. This grand jury issues subpoenas for internal audit reports, executive communications, and detailed financial statements spanning several years. They also compel testimony from current and former executives, accountants, and board members. The grand jury's findings help prosecutors understand how the fraud was perpetrated, who authorized it, and whether there is enough evidence to charge specific corporate officers with crimes like securities fraud or conspiracy.

  This example highlights how an investigative grand jury is used to meticulously examine complex corporate wrongdoing, using its authority to access critical documents and testimony to uncover the truth and determine accountability in a situation where the full extent of the crime is initially unclear.