Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/483

 446

LEGAL REMINISCENCES. BY L. E. CHITTENDEN. III. I FREQUENTLY notice decisions by our judges in criminal cases which involve matters which have transpired in the presence of the Grand Jury. Quite recently, in the State of New York, on the motion of a public officer who was not indicted, but whose name was men tioned in a presentment, stenographic re ports of all the evidence before the Grand Jury were ordered by the court to be fur nished to him, though I believe he was not permitted to have the advice of the prose cuting attorney to the body upon matters of law. I do not question these decisions. I suppose they are in conformity with modern codes and practice; but they imply such dif ferent ideas of the office of the Grand Jury from those that once prevailed, that it may interest younger members of the bar to know what the views of their fathers were upon this interesting subject. The fathers looked upon the Grand Jury as the safeguard of the citizen against malicious prosecutions, and the almost certain means of putting the real criminal upon his trial. Hence they were careful to place their best men upon the panel. At the town or March meeting it was the practice in one State at least, for the selectmen and the justices who constituted the board of civil authority to select three or four •lamesof good citizens, which were put into a box, and from them the sheriff drew one name, or, in large towns two names of those, who served from that town on the panel. This proceeding in all the towns brought together on the first day of the term of court twenty or more of the best men of the vicinage, eighteen of whom made up the Grand Jury, and the concurrence of

twelve was necessary to the finding of a bill of indictment. The presiding judge appointed the fore man, and the members were sworn. The most conspicuous part of the oath was that in which each man swore to preserve in violably the secrecy of all the proceedings before them. The charge was then de livered by the presiding justice, who seldom failed to point out and impress upon them the reason and the necessity of this secrecy. Witnesses would be more willing to disclose important facts if they knew that no one could criticise their conduct or know that they had given testimony. If a sufficient number concurred, the foreman would write the words " A true bill," and sign his name as foreman. If twelve did not concur, he would write " This bill not found," and sign his name as foreman. There were certain cases in which the statute required the names of the witnesses to be indorsed upon the bill. These names and the words to be indorsed were the only information ever to be disclosed of the proceedings before the body. It could make present ment of the condition of the public buildings and in a few other cases, but these must be limited to facts found, and should not disclose anything further. By the charge the jury were usually told that the prosecuting attorney was permitted to be present, but he acted as the ser vant of the body in the preparation of bills of indictment and procuring the at tendance of the witnesses, who were to be sworn and examined by the foreman. If the attorney conducted the examination of a witness in whole or in part, it was by favor of the panel and not as a mat ter of right. The court might at any time