A 20-member commission, including three former U.S. attorneys, was sharply critical of a system it says so favors prosecutors that an indictment is, in many cases, all that's needed for a conviction. Too many prosecutors, it concludes, use the system as an investigative tool at the expense of citizens' rights. Just such criticism has been leveled at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa, which, in the past year, has been accused of sanctioning false grand jury testimony from state troopers involved in drug cases. While we don't believe these examples represent the norm here or elsewhere, that they happen at all is reason for serious consideration of the proposed changes. Today in the federal system, a subpoenaed witness has no right to have a lawyer present.
Officials say the secrecy encourages full and truthful testimony.
But it also gives the prosecutor complete control. He or she decides what evidence to present and how it will be presented. It puts the cooperative witness at risk of having his statements or admissions used against him. Historically, the grand jury's role was to shield innocent people against arbitrary and unfounded charges. Grand jurors were supposed to decide whether there was reason to believe someone had committed a crime.