Opinion ID: 3031870
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limiting Grand Jury’s Protective Role

Text: The grand jury’s independence serves not only in the determination of probable cause, as these grand juries were instructed, but also to protect the accused from the other branches of government by acting as the “conscience of the community.” Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1066 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (“Since it has the power to refuse to indict even where a clear violation of law is shown, the grand jury can reflect the conscience of the community in providing relief where strict application of the law would prove unduly harsh.”) (citation, internal quotation omitted). 3 See sources cited in notes 1-2. UNITED STATES v. NAVARRO-VARGAS 5563 The significance of this second — and potentially protective — role should not be understated. Indeed, the strength of this understanding is emphasized in Vasquez. There, the Supreme Court said: In the hands of the grand jury lies the power to charge a greater offense or a lesser offense; numerous counts or a single count; and perhaps most sig- nificant of all, a capital offense or a noncapital offense — all on the basis of the same facts. More- over, “[the] grand jury is not bound to indict in every case where a conviction can be obtained.” United States v. Ciambrone, 601 F.2d 616, 629 (CA2 1979) (Friendly, J., dissenting).