Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Grand Juries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Former federal prosecutor urges courts to better instruct grand juries as oversight tool
Summary
At a March 5 informational hearing, Raymond Caballero, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, told senators that federal grand juries are an independent constitutional body that can investigate alleged federal officer misconduct and that judges should instruct jurors about that independence.
Raymond Caballero, who said he served six years as a prosecutor with the United States Department of Justice, told the Senate Veterans, Emergency Management, Federal and World Affairs Committee that public trust in federal law enforcement has eroded and that the federal grand jury is an underused independent institution that can investigate misconduct even when DOJ declines.
Caballero described the grand jury as constitutionally established in the Fifth Amendment and said it "is independent" and can subpoena witnesses, gather evidence and investigate "with or without the approval of DOJ or the prosecutor." He argued that judges and court administrators should provide clearer instruction to grand jurors so they understand their independent investigative powers.
During the discussion senators asked practical questions about judge oversight, subpoena power, juror selection and term lengths. Caballero said selection commonly uses random draws from voter registration or driver’s license lists, grand juries can be empaneled for regular sessions (often up to 18 months) and judges rarely exercise the full scope of direction the law allows. He urged officials to "raise our voices" and inform federal courts about the independent role grand juries can play in accountability.
The hearing included a period of questions from senators with legal and prosecutorial backgrounds; senators thanked Caballero for the historical and practical overview. The committee closed the informational hearing with no formal action, but senators noted the material for potential further discussion on oversight and court instruction.
