The herald., 1897-10-10

time ago it was in favor Of abolishing
the grand jury altogether, but that was
an lmpossibility, such a drastic action
being unconstitutional. The next best
thing was done, however, and the law
relating to grand juries was amended
Section 241 of the code of civil proceed
ure provides as follows:
Every superior court, whenever In the
opinion Of the court the public interest NAV
require it, may make and file with the
county clerk an order directing a Jury to be
drawn, and designating the number, which,
in case of grand jury. shall not be less
than twenty-five nor more than thirty. In
all counties having less than three superior
court judges there shall be one grand Jury
drawn and impaneled in each year; and in
all counties having three or more superior
court judges, there shall be two grand
Juries drawn and impaneled in each year.
1t will thus be seen that Los Angeles
county is entitled to two grand juries in
the year, but the empanelng of a grand
jury by the superior court is not made
mandatory by the above section. and
being merely directory it is not to be
supposed that when. a grand Jury re-
mains in session for seven or eight
urgent need for crowding two grand
juries into one year.
line old-fashioned mode of the grand
jury making a return against a person
that they have reason to believe to be
guilty of crime by presentment has
fallen into disuse, and is no longer fol-
lowed. A presentment is merely an in
formal statement in writing, represent
Ing to the court that a public offe Ne has
been committed and that there exists
reasonable ground for believing that a
certain person has committed it. Such
mode of procedure simply prompted an
investigation on the part Of the district
attorney that the grand jury could make
equally well. Such investigation having
been made by the grand jury, a return
can be made against person guilty Of
crime by Indictment. An Indictment.
inaddition to the technical requirements,
must contain a statement of the acts
the constituting the offense in ordinary
and concise language, and in such man
ner as to enable a person of common un-
derstanding to know what is intended.
But the supreme court of this, as well
as other states has held that a speedier
and in every way more satisfactory
mode Of proceeding against criminal
is by way of information through the
district attorney Of the county. That
being 80, the onerous duty Of sitting in
star chamber session upon some fel-
low who. if summoned before the grand
jury, does not know against whom his
testimony is to be used, is on longer re-
quired. Ofttines some witness. assum-
ing such testimony is to be used against
some one else, finds out too late that he
had been put through series of in
terrogations, without benefit of counsel.
to his own damnation. There is always.
too, the possibility of criminal inyesti-
cation being perfunctorily performed by
grand jury. Two years ago five indict-
mentS were returned, and not one re-
suited in conviction. Last year. when
Judge Smith charged the grand Jury as
to their duties, he pointed out the fact
upon which the supreme court has laid
stress, that their duty was not prima
rily to fritter away time in investigat-
ing crime for the purpose Of returning
indictments when an offender could be
reached in more satisfactory way by
information.
STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS
At the same time star chamber ses-
sions are some times useful in uuearth-