Ryan Mears, Marion County prosecutor, told attendees at the Community Justice Academy on Oct. 15 that the county uses the grand jury mainly in cases where the community’s judgment on ‘‘reasonableness’’ is needed or when investigators must compel reluctant witnesses to testify.

"By probable cause," Mears said, describing the standard the grand jury uses to decide whether to indict, and he explained that most felony charges in Indiana are filed by charging information based on a police probable‑cause affidavit rather than by grand jury indictment.

The panel — prosecutors Amy Jacobson and Anne Frangus of the Marion County Grand Jury and Special Crimes unit — described how local grand juries are formed, how proceedings run, and what the secrecy rules mean in practice. They said a Marion County grand jury is empaneled quarterly, consists of six jurors plus an alternate, and requires five jurors for a quorum and to return an indictment.

Jacobson said the grand jury is ‘‘our chance as prosecutors to get feedback from the community on our case,’’ and she and Frangus described three common uses: civilian targets (for example, homicide), investigative grand juries used to compel evidence or testimony, and presentations involving law‑enforcement officers who discharged weapons.

Frangus and Jacobson detailed practical procedures: jurors are summoned using the same jury‑selection process as trial juries, must be Marion County residents, U.S. citizens and at least 18, and are given legal instructions including definitions of probable cause and applicable offense elements. Prosecutors act as legal advisers in the grand jury room; judges are not present during questioning but are available by request. The presenters said grand jurors may ask witnesses questions after a prosecutor completes direct questioning, and deliberations occur in private with recordings turned off.

The speakers explained target‑rights and counsel access: a person who is the subject of an investigation receives a written target letter, is told they may consult an attorney and may choose to testify; if they testify, their attorney may be present but may not speak during proceedings. Jacobson said prosecutors take steps to present evidence that would likely be admissible at trial and to call jurors’ attention to any deals or incentives witnesses received so jurors can judge credibility.

On subpoenas and evidence, the presenters said grand juries can compel documents such as bank or phone records via subpoena. They described that the standard for a grand jury subpoena is a lower ‘‘reasonableness’’ threshold than the probable‑cause standard needed for a search warrant, making subpoenas a common investigative tool, particularly in white‑collar matters. Frangus noted that hearsay and lab reports that would require live testimony at trial can be summarized in the grand jury setting.

Secrecy and sanctions were emphasized. The presenters said statutes make grand jury proceedings confidential and criminalize unauthorized disclosure. Mears and Frangus told the audience that a judge may hold a witness in civil contempt for refusing to answer a properly compelled question; a judge can fine a witness or order imprisonment for contempt, and Frangus cited a limit of up to 180 days under that contempt authority.

The prosecutors contrasted Indiana practice with other states: unlike New York, where a live grand jury is required for felonies, Indiana commonly charges felonies by information based on a probable‑cause affidavit; California frequently uses a public preliminary hearing. They also said states vary on unanimity requirements and other procedural details.

Audience members asked about follow‑up steps grand jurors can request; presenters said grand jurors can ask for additional photos, witnesses or documents and the judge can order those supplements. A question about demographic breakdowns of grand jury indictments drew the response that secrecy limits public data: if a grand jury returns no indictment, the proceedings remain confidential and the public record does not show who was considered.

The session closed with the presenters noting the grand jury’s role as an investigatory and community‑informed check on prosecutorial charging decisions, and with an announcement of a future session on a recent homicide prosecution.