Grand Jury Va Code CH 13 and 14

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &
as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 1 of 42 Chapter 13
Grand Jury

Code Sections 19.2-191 to 19.2-215.11 - pages 2 to 27 Chapter 14
Indictments, Presentments, and Informations

Code Sections 19.2-216 to 19.2-238 - pages 27 to
19.2-191.
19.2-192.
19.2-192.1.
19.2-193.
19.2-194.

19.2-195.
19.2-196.
19.2-197.
19.2-198.
19.2-199.
19.2-200.
19.2-201.
Functions of a grand jury. Secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Sealing of indictment. Number of regular grand juries. When and how grand jurors to be selected and summoned; lists to be delivered to clerk. Number and qualications of grand jurors. How deciency of jurors supplied. Foreman of grand jury; oaths of jurors and witnesses. When new foreman or juror may be sworn in. Judge to charge grand jury. Duties of grand jury. Ofcers to give information of violation of penal laws to attorney for Commonwealth. 19.2-202.
How indictments found and presentment made. 19.2-203.
Indictments ignored may be sent to another grand jury; what irregularities not to vitiate indictment, etc. 19.2-204.
Penalties on ofcers and jurors for failure of duty. 19.2-205.
Pay and mileage of grand jurors. 19.2-206.
When impanelled. 19.2-207.
Composition of a special grand jury. 19.2-208.
Subpoena power of special grand jury. 19.2-209.
Presence of counsel for a witness. 19.2-210.
Presence of attorney for the Commonwealth. 19.2-211.
Provision for special counsel and other personnel. 19.2-212.
Provision for court reporter; use and disposition of notes, tapes and transcriptions. 19.2-213.
Report by special grand jury; return of true bill. 19.2-213.1.
Discharge of special grand jury. 19.2-214.
Prosecutions resulting from report. 19.2-215.
Costs of special grand jury. 19.2-215.1.
Functions of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury. 19.2-215.2.
Application for such grand jury. 19.2-215.3.
When impaneled; impaneling order. 19.2-215.4.
Number and qualications of jurors; grand jury list; when convened; compensation of jurors. 19.2-215.5.
Subpoena power; counsel for witness; oath. 19.2-215.6.
Role and presence of special counsel; examination of witnesses. 19.2-215.7.
Warnings given to witnesses; when witness in contempt; use of testimony compelled after witness invokes right against self-incrimination. 19.2-215.8.
Returning a "true bill" of indictment; jurisdiction to be set out. 19.2-215.9.
Court reporter provided; safekeeping of transcripts, notes, etc.; when disclosure permitted; access to record of testimony and evidence. 19.2-215.10.
Participation by Ofce of Attorney General; assistance of special counsel permitted in certain prosecutions. 19.2-215.11.
Discharge of grand jury.
[The Grand Jury] can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. U.S. v. Morton Salt Co. (1950) by U.S.supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who never nished law school and never attended college; his wise words quoted by Justice Sandra Day OConnor in U.S. v. R Enterprises, Inc. (1991); which was quoted a year later by Justice Antonin Scalia in U.S v. Williams (1992).

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 2 of 42 19.2-191.
Functions of a grand jury. The functions of a grand jury are twofold: (1) To consider bills of indictment prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth and to determine whether as to each such bill there is sufcient probable cause to return such indictment "a true bill." {NOTE: The Grand Jury here is the entity of the court that determines probable cause, in other circumstances, the Judge is the entity of the court who determines probable cause.} (2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided. (1975, c. 495; 1980, c. 517; 2001, c. 4.) {NOTE: The (2) sub-paragraph clause by any governmental authority, agency, or official thereof harkens back to the original purpose of the Grand Jury, to serve as the Sword and Shield of the Citizen in relation to the King or Government. That being the case, the Grand Jury must operate independently of the Government, whether that governmental authority, agency or official be of the Judicial, or Executive, or even the Legislative Branch. Therefore, a concerned Citizen must have some avenue to provide information directly to the Grand Jury, without approval or permission from any judge, or any prosecutor, who indeed, may be perpetrating, or aiding and abetting, the criminal activity. The best way is a simple request to the Clerk of the Court to schedule a time before the Grand Jury.} 19.2-192. Secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every member of a regular or special grand jury shall keep secret all proceedings which occurred during sessions of the grand jury; provided, however, in a prosecution for perjury of a witness examined before a regular grand jury, a regular grand juror may be required by the court to testify as to the testimony given by such witness before the regular grand jury. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: SECRECY ADOPTED IN 1681 By 1681, the English grand jury adopted the rule of
secrecy which allowed it to function out of the sight of the King's prosecutors or other intermeddlers. It was secrecy that provided the grand jury with its greatest power as an independent populist body, equipped with an oversight power on the government. (see CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821.) Given that history, and the legal obligations of 19.2-191 (2) above, to investigate and report, the Grand Jury must decide for itself what of its work it desires to remain secret, and what to be made public, that is not to be prescribed or restricted by either a judge or prosecutor, or even by legislators.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 3 of 42 19.2-192.1. Sealing of indictment. Upon ex parte motion by the Commonwealth and for good cause shown, the circuit court may seal an indictment until such time as the defendant is arrested. (2002, c. 130.) {NOTE: The 19.2-191(2) sub-paragraph clause by any governmental authority, agency, or official thereof harkens to the Sword and Shield purpose of the Grand Jury in relation to the King or Government. That being the case, the Grand Jury must operate independently of the Government, whether that governmental authority, agency or official be of the Judicial (judge), or Executive (prosecutor), Therefore, the Grand Jury, must decide if its investigation, indictment, or presentment (or report) is to be sealed, and until what time, or under what conditions, its work is to be unsealed. 19.2-193. Number of regular grand juries. There shall be a regular grand jury at each term of the circuit court of each county and city, unless the court, on the motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth or with his concurrence, nds that it is unnecessary or impractical to impanel a grand jury for the particular term and enters an order to that effect. Whenever the number of cases to be considered by the grand jury at a given term is so great as to hamper the intelligent consideration thereof by a single grand jury, the court may order two or more regular grand juries to be impanelled to sit separately at the same or a different time during the term. Whenever a regular grand jury has been discharged, the court, during the term, may impanel another regular grand jury. (Code 1950, 19.1-147; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.) {NOTE: The phrase shall be a regular grand jury unless the court, on the motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth or with his concurrence, finds appears to be in logical contradiction to the 19.2-191(2) sub-paragraph clause about criminal activity by any governmental authority, agency, or official thereof. This allows a judge, with a prosecutor to thwart legal actions by Citizens to provide information to the Grand Jury about any such criminal activity. Further, if a judge, acting as the court, discharges a regular grand jury, when some of its members may have learned of some information about criminal activity by any governmental authority, agency, or official, and be waiting to share it with other Grand Jurors at the next scheduled meeting, for investigation and indictment, or expect to learn from another Citizen at the next scheduled meeting of the Grand Jury, then the judge and prosecutor can thwart the cause of Justice for which the Grand Jury serves.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 4 of 42 19.2-194. When and how grand jurors to be selected and summoned; lists to be delivered to clerk. The judge or judges regularly presiding in the circuit court of each county and city shall annually, in the month of June, July, or August, select from citizens of the county or city at least 60 persons and not more than 120 persons 18 years of age or over, of honesty, intelligence, impartiality, and good demeanor and suitable in all respects to serve as grand jurors, who, except as hereinafter provided, shall be the grand jurors for the county or city from which they are selected for the next 12 months. The judge or judges making the selection shall at once furnish to the clerk of the circuit court a list of those selected for that county or city. The clerk, not more than 20 days before the commencement of each term of his court at which a regular grand jury is required, shall issue a venire facias to the sheriff of his county or city, commanding him to summon not less than ve nor more than nine of the persons selected as aforesaid (the number to be designated by the judge of the court by an order entered of record) to be named in the writ to appear on the rst day of the court to serve as grand jurors. Those persons who are to be summoned shall be randomly selected but no such person shall be required to appear more than once until all the others have been summoned once, nor more than twice until the others have been twice summoned, and so on. The Circuit Court of James City County, or the judge thereof in vacation, shall select the grand jurors for each court from such county and the City of Williamsburg in such proportion from each as he may think proper. Any person who has legal custody of and is responsible for a child 16 years of age or younger or a person having a mental or physical impairment requiring continuous care during normal court hours shall be excused from jury service upon his request. (Code 1950, 19.1-148; 1960, c. 366; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 262; 1973, cc. 401, 439; 1974, c. 618; 1975, c. 495; 1991, c. 226; 2003, c. 825; 2004, c. 306; 2008, c. 644.) {NOTE: Above notice the many times this section of the Code of Virginia has been amended by the General Assembly, most recently five years ago in 2008, so maybe it would be wise to amend it yet again? Why? A careful reading of this section shows the random selection that is a basic, underlying presumption of Citizens in regard to Jurors, either Grand Jury or Petit Jury, comes in the third paragraph, AFTER the judge selects the annual master list of at least 60 persons and not more than 120 persons. Note the law does not impose a random selection requirement on the judge or judges. In theory, the judge or judges could choose the annual list from the members of their church, gun club, or Masonic lodge, and then have the Clerk randomly select from that pre-selected list, and so in lawyer language be able to honestly tell Citizens that the Grand Jurors were randomly selected. Not quite The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth, but news and history provides many examples where a judge has for years or decades controlled membership on the Grand Jury, thereby violating the entire concept of its independence.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 5 of 42 19.2-195. Number and qualications of grand jurors. A regular grand jury shall consist of not less than ve nor more than seven persons. Each grand juror shall be a citizen of this Commonwealth, eighteen years of age or over, and shall have been a resident of this Commonwealth one year and of the county or corporation in which the court is to be held six months, and in other respects a qualied juror, and, when the grand juror is for a circuit court of a county, not an inhabitant of a city, except in those cases in which the circuit court of the county has jurisdiction in the city. (Code 1950, 19.1-150; 1960, c. 366; 1973, c. 439; 1974, c. 617; 1975, c. 495; 1991, c. 226.) {NOTE: The Grand Jury in English Common Law tradition derives from Article 61 of the
Magna Carta of 1215, where 25 Barons controlled the excesses of King John. In Maryland, a Grand Jury is composed of 23 Citizens who serve for one year, whereas in Virginia, the term of service or session is usually three months, and the number of jurors in each session is 5 to 7, thus times 4 quarters in a year, would total 20 to 28 Citizens, in the same range as the 25 Barons of the Magna Carta. It may be wise for Virginia legislators to revisit the rationale for the smaller numbers of Grand Jurors in multiple sessions per year to afrm the Virginia Grand Jury Way.}
19.2-196. How deciency of jurors supplied. If a sufcient number of grand jurors do not appear, the court may order the deciency to be supplied from the bystanders or from a list furnished by the judge to the sheriff or sergeant. (Code 1950, 19.1-151; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: For logical order, or sequence, should this section follow 19.2-198, that contains the phrase fail or be unable to attend another may be sworn in his stead?}
19.2-197. Foreman of grand jury; oaths of jurors and witnesses. From among the persons summoned who attend the court shall select a foreman who shall be sworn as follows:

"You shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given you in charge, or come to your knowledge, touching the present service. You shall present no person through prejudice or ill-will, nor leave any unpresented through fear or favor, but in all your presentments you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God."
The other grand jurors shall afterwards be sworn as follows: "The same oath that your foreman has taken on his part, you and each of you shall observe and keep on your part. So help you God." Any witness testifying before the grand jury may be sworn by the foreman.
{NOTE: Curious the words may be, rather than will be or shall be. If a witness testifies before the grand jury, what Oath to use, and if not sworn by the foreman, or other grand juror assigned to do so, or by the court reporter present, can the witness later be charged for Perjury and prosecuted? Here the court shall select a foreman should be interpreted to mean the Grand Jury, not the judge.}
(Code 1950, 19.1-152; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.) 19.2-198. When new foreman or juror may be sworn in. If the foreman or any grand juror, at any time after being sworn, fail or be unable to attend another may be sworn in his stead.
{NOTE: This section may apply if one Juror has a Conict of Interest that is discovered after the cases are presented to the Grand Jury, especially if only ve Jurors are impanelled.}
(Code 1950, 19.1-153; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)


as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 6 of 42 19.2-199. Judge to charge grand jury. The grand jury, after being sworn, shall be charged by the judge of the court and shall then be sent to their room. In the charge given by the court to a regular grand jury, the court shall instruct it to advise the court after their considerations of the bills of indictment whether it desires to be impanelled as a special grand jury to consider any matters provided for in subdivision (2) of 19.2-191. (Code 1950, 19.1-154; 1960, cc. 366,467; 1975, c. 495.)
NOTE: This phrase whether it desires to be impanelled as a special grand jury is not wise for several reasons: (1) Having Regular Grand Jurors self-select to serve on a Special Grand Jury seems to contradict the legal logic elsewhere in this Chapter 13, at 19.2-193. Number of regular grand juries. with the words hamper the intelligent consideration thereof by a single grand jury, for hearing another case could result in fatigue, either mental or physical, or both ; and at 19.2-194. When and how grand jurors to be selected and summoned; lists to be delivered to clerk. with the words Those persons who are to be summoned shall be randomly selected for in reality the Regular Grand Jurors are self-selecting to serve on a Special Grand Jury, rather than being random selected; and again with the words, but no such person shall be required to appear more than once until all the others have been summoned once, nor more than twice until the others have been twice summoned, and so on. for being both a Regular Grand Juror and a Special Grand Juror is two calls to serve, before other Citizens serve their rst call to serve. (2) The duties as members of the REGULAR Grand Jury are enough that it is not wise to burden these same Citizens with double duty, or even much more than double time as Special Grand Jurors, for the duties as a Special Grand Juror, rst with involvement in Investigation, and then to decide whether or not to Indict, are often times more than required of the Regular Grand Juror; (3) The nancial burden on a Grand Juror of being away from their daily work at job or home for only $35 per day expenses (per diem), when the income loss may be hundreds of dollars per day, could cause the Regular Grand Juror to do the mental calculation of I can not afford to serve on a Special Grand Jury., so vote against personally serving on a Special Grand Jury, despite the reality that a Special Grand Jury is much needed to investigate crimes in the community, especially crimes by public servants such as police or prosecutors, who experience proves are unlikely to adequately investigate themselves or their co-workers. (4) There is less likely an objective or fresh look at the information received as part of the Special Grand Jury investigation than would be supplied by a new group of Jurors. (5) The timing of the question from the presiding judge to the Grand Jurors advise the court
after their considerations of the bills of indictment whether it desires to be impanelled as a special grand jury increases the likelihood of Juror fatigue, and thereby, a negative vote.
(6) There is NO REQUIREMENT that one or some or all of the Regular Grand Jurors serve on a Special Grand Jury they vote to impanel, and a new group would be more objective, if none did.} {NOTE: Given there is a twenty (20) day requirement for Summons to Grand Jurors by the Clerk of the Circuit Court by way of the Sheriff, ALSO there should be a requirement that every Charge, or Supplemental Grand Jury Instructions, or the like, by the Presiding Judge must be given to the Grand Jurors, and published publicly at least three work days before the scheduled date of meeting.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 7 of 42 19.2-200. Duties of grand jury. The grand jury shall inquire of and present all felonies, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws committed within the jurisdiction of the respective courts wherein it is sworn; except that no presentment shall be made of a matter for which there is no corporal punishment, but only a ne, where the ne is limited to an amount not exceeding ve dollars. After a regular grand jury has concluded its deliberation on bills of indictment and made its return thereon, the court shall inquire of it whether it recommends that a special grand jury be impanelled to perform any of the functions provided for in subdivision (2) of 19.2-191.
{NOTE: This phrase whether it desires to be impanelled as a special grand jury used above in 19.2-199 is not wise, as discussed. (Click here to go there to read Note.) Here the phrase is better, whether it recommends that a special grand jury be impanelled, for here it does not imply the Regular Grand Juror must or are encouraged to re-constitute themselves, or some number of them, one or more, as Special Grand Jurors, bad for the reasons discussed above.}
If a majority of the grand jurors responds in the afrmative, the court shall impanel so many of that jury as answer in the afrmative and are also willing to serve thereon,
{NOTE: This phrase whether it desires to be impanelled as a special grand jury is not wise for several reasons, as described above (Click here to go there to read Note.) }
plus any additional members as may be necessary to complete the panel, as a special grand jury and if a minority of the grand jurors responds in the afrmative, the court may impanel a special grand jury in the same manner.
{NOTE:
According to the October 2004 issue of The Virginia Lawyer article by Judge Arthur Kelsey, the court is like the legislature, bi-cameral, or with two houses. Another way to view the structure properly is Court is comparable to Congress, the Judges are like the Senators, and the Jurors are like the U.S. Representatives, or as in Virginia, like Delegates;
so here the court can mean the (regular) Grand Jury, when a MAJORITY of its members so vote, thereby the Grand Jury establishes Probable Cause, so by its independent action a Special Grand Jury SHALL be impaneled, directly by the Regular Grand Jury vote; ! or if a MINORITY of the Grand Jurors vote for a Special Grand Jury, then the judge and the Grand Jury minority MAY impanel a Special Grand Jury, but NOT in the same manner, in a manner assisted by the concurrence of a judge.
If the much valued independence of the Grand Jury is to be honored, and its critical role of oversight, investigation, and indictment where tting of the activities of the other three branches of government; the Regular Grand Jury ability to impanel a Special Grand Jury must not be held hostage in any way by any decision of any judge, or in the alternative, any prosecutor.}
(Code 1950, 19.1-155; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1978, c. 741; 1980, c. 134.)

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 8 of 42 19.2-201. Ofcers to give information of violation of penal laws to attorney for Commonwealth.
Every commissioner of the revenue, sheriff, constable or other ofcer shall promptly give information of the violation of any penal law to the attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall forthwith institute and prosecute all necessary and proper proceedings in such case, whether in the name of the Commonwealth or of a county or corporation, and may in such case issue or cause to be issued a summons for any witnesses he may deem material to give evidence before the court or grand jury.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no attorney for the Commonwealth shall go before any grand jury except when duly sworn to testify as a witness, but he may advise the foreman of a regular grand jury or any member or members thereof in relation to the discharge of their duties. (Code 1950, 19.1-156; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE:
A reference or link to the Virginia Penal Laws would be helpful for the reader to be added to this code section, and indeed, a Grand Jury in Henry County in 2009 began an investigation into corruption in a county jail. Further, on 27 March 2013, the second day of the oral arguments on the homosexual partnership effort to be redefined as marriage cases, the United States supreme Court ruling in Millbrook v. US: Holding the Government Accountable for Misconduct by Law Enforcement Officials where a male prison guard raped a male prisoner by forcing the inmate to perform oral sex, and the Justices ruled by a 9 to 0 the government can be held accountable for misconduct by a lawsuit filed by the inmate.} {NOTE:
Given the historical function of the Grand Jury as the Sword and Shield to protect the people against abuse by King or Government, it would be wise for Virginia legislators to remove the temptation, or the potential for any attorney for the Commonwealth to wrongly influence the Grand Jurors by the legislated permit of he may advise the foreman of a regular grand
jury or any member or members thereof in relation to the discharge of their duties. Better would be to have properly educated attorneys, either in fact or at law (members of the Bar), on the history of independence of the Grand Jury to provide Pro Bono service to advise the foreman of a regular grand jury or any member or members thereof in relation to the discharge of their duties as Grand Jurors. This would restore a needed separation of
Prosecutor potential influence from the independent functioning of the Grand Jury.
On the other hand, the attorney for the Commonwealth, only after being duly sworn to testify as a witness, and thereby could be held accountable for the felony of Perjury if the testimony is false, could testify as to the facts of evidence collected by police or other investigators, and may give an honest summary of what various witnesses could testify; yet ALSO would be REQUIRED, in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, to tell the Grand Jury of any and all Exculpatory Evidence or alibi witnesses that are known on behalf of the Defendant.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 9 of 42 19.2-202. How indictments found and presentment made. At least four of a regular grand jury must concur

in nding or making an indictment or presentment. of two or more of its own body, or on the testimony of witnesses called on by the grand jury, or sent to it by the court.
It may make a presentment or nd an indictment upon the information
If only one of their number can testify as to an offense, he shall be sworn as any other witness. When a presentment or indictment is so made or found,

the names of the grand jurors giving the information, or of the witnesses,
shall be written at the foot of the presentment or indictment. (Code 1950, 19.1-157; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE:
Functional analysis of this section reveals that the requirement of At least four when 5 Regular Grand Jurors is 80 per cent vote, if 6 is 67 per cent, and if 7 is 57 per cent vote. Compare that to Maryland where 12 of 23 Grand Jurors must vote, which is 52 per cent vote. Is probable cause established at a simple majority of 52 per cent or a super majority of 57, 67 or 80 per cent? The phrase upon the information of two or more of its own body logically raises the question, how are Regular Grand Jurors to acquire, or learn of such information? By chance? Or by luck of the draw in the random selection process of Grand Jurors? Such chance process would deny to Citizens any semblance of Due Process. Therefore there must be a Due Process whereby a Citizen may communicate with members selected for the Grand Jury, even if anonymously, such as Grand Jury Foreman, Grand Juror 2, Grand Juror 3, and so on; and be assured of at least an acknowledgement of receipt, with a simple statement of disposition, such as: Dear fellow Citizen: The ___________ Grand Jury thanks you for the information you provided. We have voted to: (_) 1. Initiate an investigation. (_) Issue an indictment. (_) Prepare a presentment. (_) Dismiss. Yet the concept of anonymous communication of information provided by a Citizen to members of the Grand Jury of criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof appears inconsistent with the phrase: the names of the grand jurors giving the information, or of the witnesses, shall be written at the foot of the presentment or indictment. There is no anonymity intended, given the Grand Jurors names shall be written. Also raised is the question of the contrast of numbers necessary for Grand Jury action between the phrase At least four of a regular grand jury and upon the information of two or more of its own body, or witnesses (plural is two or more). Is it at least four when a Bill of Indictment is presented to the Grand Jury by the attorney for the Commonwealth as in 19.2-191.(1), and two or more when Grand Jurors themselves raise the issue of a criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or official thereof as in 19.2-191.(2)? The follow on question is how is that information obtained, from Grand Jurors own awareness, or provided by Citizens?}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 10 of 42 19.2-203. Indictments ignored may be sent to another grand jury; what irregularities not to vitiate indictment, etc. Although a bill of indictment be returned not a true bill

the same or another bill of indictment against the same person for the same offense may be sent to, and acted on, by the same or another grand jury. or in the writ of venire facias, or in the manner of executing the same,
No irregularity in the time or manner of selecting the jurors,
shall vitiate any presentment, indictment or nding of a grand jury. (Code 1950, 19.1-158; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE:
In effect this Code section by its words, the same or another bill of indictment against the same person for the same offense may be sent to, and acted on, by the same or another grand jury. states that in Virginia, the provision of Amendment V of this Constitution for the United States of America: nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; does not apply. One might wonder why?
Then again, from early American History, we learn that President Thomas Jefferson tried at least three times, in Kentucky (unsuccessful), in the Mississippi Territory (unsuccessful), and in his home state of Virginia (successful), to have a federal Grand Jury return a true bill indictment against his former Vice President, Aaron Burr, for alleged Treason, or for attempt to incite war with Mexico, or Spain. Then the Trial of the Century was held in the Jefferson designed Capitol of Virginia with Chief Justice John Marshall presiding. The Petit (Trial) Jury acquitted Burr (found Not Guilty) of the charges brought by the Virginia, third, Grand Jury.
The rest of this Code section No irregularity in the time or manner of selecting the jurors basically states that the work of the Grand Jury shall not be set aside due to some administrative error in the proper formation (impaneling) and functioning of the Grand Jury. Yet this needs to be re-considered, and possibly amended, in relation to the NOTE at:
19.2-194. When and how grand jurors to be selected and summoned; lists to be delivered to clerk. {NOTE: Above notice the many times this section of the Code of Virginia has been amended by the General Assembly, most recently five years ago in 2008, so maybe it would be wise to amend it yet again? Why? A careful reading of this section shows the random selection that is a basic, underlying presumption of Citizens in regard to Jurors, either Grand Jury or Petit Jury, comes in the third paragraph, AFTER the judge selects the annual master list of at least 60 persons and not more than 120 persons. Note the law does not impose a random selection requirement on the judge or judges. In theory, the judge or judges could choose the annual list from the members of their church, gun club, or Masonic lodge, and then have the Clerk randomly select from that pre-selected list, and so in lawyer language be able to honestly tell Citizens that the Grand Jurors were randomly selected. Not quite The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth, but news and history provides many examples where a judge has for years or decades controlled membership on the Grand Jury, thereby violating the entire concept of independence.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 11 of 42 19.2-204. Penalties on ofcers and jurors for failure of duty. A court whose ofcer fails without good cause, when it is his duty,
to summon a grand jury
and return a list of its names

shall ne him twenty dollars. A person summoned and failing to attend a court as a grand juror

shall be ned by the court not less than ve dollars nor more than twenty dollars, unless, after being summoned to show cause against the ne,
he gives a reasonable excuse for his failure. (Code 1950, 19.1-159; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: Is the Constitutional Ofcer elected by the Citizens whose title is Clerk of the Circuit Court, the officer that fits the definition of court whose ofcer ?
Or is any member of the Virginia State Bar, the entity that is an agency of the Virginia supreme Court, that would include both lawyers and judges, an ofcer of the court, by its own denition?
One might review the maximum nes that could be imposed by a judge as one part of the court, the jury being the other part of the court, and amend this section to make the nes that could be imposed by the Grand Jury at least equal, if not more, to parallel the aspect of the laws where a Jury of Peers (fellow Citizens) may impose a more severe penalty than can a Judge.
Yet if an ofcer of the court, whether it be a clerk, a lawyer, or a judge, fails to do his (or her in modern gender conscious composition) duty, to fail to summon a grand jury, or fail to return a list of its names, such failure seriously or tragically erodes the condence of Citizens in their Courts, and Courts are an agency of Justice used by and for the Citizens, courts are not a private playground of Court employees (judges or clerks), or Bar member officers of the court. But what about the unless clause in Code section 19.2-193. Number of regular grand juries.?: There shall be a regular grand jury at each termunless the court, on the motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth or with his concurrence, nds that it is unnecessary or impractical to impanel a grand jury for the particular term and enters an order to that effect. (Potential for court officers to thwart will of the People.)
Therefore, the amount of the nes imposed on an ofcer of the court, court ofcer, or court employee, should be MUCH GREATER than herein stated, such as shall ne him twenty
thousand dollars (that could be paid by professional errors and omissions insurance) and where is stated: unless, after being summoned to show cause against the ne, he gives a
reasonable excuse for his failure, where reasonable excuse or good cause is determined by a separate group of Citizens in a Petit (Trial) Jury, not ever by a judge.
The failure of a Citizen or as stated A person to attend a court as a grand juror shall be fined in an amount decided by their fellow Citizens on the Grand Jury where they did not serve, up to a maximum amount of three or ten times the per diem rate they would have been paid, in 2013, $35 per day, so the fines could range from $105 to $350 (yet see 19.2-205. below).}
19.2-205. Pay and mileage of grand jurors. Every person who serves upon a grand jury, regular or special, shall receive the same compensation and mileage allowed jurors in civil cases by 17.1-618 and the same shall be paid out of the county or corporation levy. (Code 1950, 19.1-160; 1960, c. 366; 1974, c. 207; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: To properly value the service of a Grand Juror, the Per Diem rate should at least equal an amount equal to one fth (or one seventh) of the Per Diem amount paid to a substitute judge.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 12 of 42 19.2-206. When impanelled. A. Special grand juries may be impanelled by a circuit court (i) at any time upon its own motion, (ii) upon recommendation of a minority of the members of a regular grand jury that a special grand jury be impanelled, to perform the functions provided for in subdivision (2) of 19.2-191, or (iii) upon request of the attorney for the Commonwealth to investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity and consider bills of indictment to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to return each such indictment as a "true bill." B. A special grand jury shall be impanelled by a circuit court upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of a regular grand jury if the court nds probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed which should be investigated by a special grand jury impanelled to perform the functions provided for in subdivision (2) of 19.2-191. (Code 1950, 19.1-149; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1978, c. 741; 1980, c. 134; 1987, c. 136; 2001, c. 4.)
{NOTE: To simplify the decision tree of when a Special Grand Jury is to be impanelled, either MAY BE, sub-paragraph A, gives THREE options; B, gives the FOURTH, with SHALL BE:
(1) MAY BE impanelled by a circuit court upon its own motion, which given the court is a word that includes both Jury and Judge, can mean by motion of a Judge, or more narrowly, the presiding judge of the circuit court, at any time suggests not time limited to the next scheduled meeting of a Regular Grand Jury, where Summons must be sent out twenty days before its time to convene. This judge option allows a more time responsive impanelling of a Special Grand Jury in response to an immediate need or crisis in the community.
(2) MAY BE impanelled by the circuit court Grand Jury when a minority of its members see the need given subdivision (2) of 19.2-191:
(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or official thereof. These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided. As elsewhere provided in this Chapter, if a minority of Regular Grand Jurors vote to impanel a Special Grand Jury, a Judge is called upon to join the minority by a determination of Probable Cause;
(3) MAY BE impanelled upon request of the attorney for the Commonwealth, yet that request must be approved by that part of the court called the Grand Jury; this requirement reflects the Shield function of the Sword and Shield duties of the Grand Jury, it is not proper for the judge part of the court to substitute for the Grand Jury finding Probable Cause;
(4) SHALL BE impanelled by a circuit court upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of a regular grand jury. The vote of a majority of the Grand Jury members IS IN ITSELF the court finding of Probable Cause, no judge involvement is necessary, in the same way that no Grand Jury involvement is necessary in the judge only Option (1) above.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 13 of 42 19.2-207. Composition of a special grand jury. Special grand juries shall consist of not less than seven and not more than 11 members, and shall be summoned from a list prepared by the court. Members of a special grand jury shall possess the same qualications as those prescribed for members of a regular grand jury, including indifferent in the cause to be conducted by the special grand jury. In order to determine a potential juror's qualications, the presiding judge shall examine each juror individually and under oath. He shall then certify in writing and not under seal that he has examined the members of the special grand jury and has found that they are qualied and are impartial and disinterested in the subject matter and outcome of the investigation. The examination shall be recorded by a court reporter and conducted pursuant to the requirements of secrecy provided for in this chapter. The court shall appoint one of the members as foreman. (1975, c. 495; 2008, c. 644.)
{NOTE: There is a danger in this numerical overlap of the maximum number of Regular Grand Jurors of seven, and the minimum number of seven for a Special Grand Jury.
A Court Reporter has observed seven Regular Grand Jurors summoned, when the Presiding Judge knew in advance of a Citizen who sought to provide information to the Regular Grand Jury, to ask it to vote to impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate criminal activity, ...by any governmental authority, agency or official thereof.
And there seemed to be pressure by the presiding judge that the Regular Grand Jurors would need to also serve on the Special Grand Jury, that placed an extra burden on the Regular Grand Jurors, that psychologically may reduce the likelihood of a positive vote for a Special Grand Jury. Possibly changing the minimum number to nine could help, but far better would be to preclude service by any Regular Grand Juror on any Special Grand Jury.
Also there is evidence from a 15 February 2011 meeting of a Regular Grand Jury in Winchester where the Presiding Judge full well knew that the man he named as Foreman (NOT elected by fellow Grand Jurors) had served as Vice Mayor at the same time one police ofcer who was alleged to have committed Perjury and Evidence Tampering was the subject of a closed Personnel Committee session of the City Council, such that the Foreman was clearly NOT impartial and disinterested in the subject matter and outcome of the investigation.
The Citizen who sought to provide information to the Regular Grand Jury asked the Presiding Judge for a Rehearing of the Grand Jury, that the judge denied. An Appeal to the Virginia supreme Court resulted in an April 19, 2011 ORDER signed by the Chief Justice for a judge retired from another jurisdiction to come to Winchester and preside over a Regular Grand Jury. In over two years, the retired, substitute judge never complied with the ORDER of the Chief Justice.} The example above shows why the phrase The court shall appoint one of the members as foreman. should be changed to Grand Jurors shall elect a foreman.} {NOTE:

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 14 of 42 19.2-208. Subpoena power of special grand jury. The special grand jury may subpoena persons to appear before it to testify and to produce specied records, papers, and documents or other tangible things, but before any witness testies, he shall be warned by the foreman that he need not answer any questions or produce any evidence that would tend to incriminate him, and that the witness may have counsel of his own procurement present when he appears to testify, and at the same time the foreman also shall warn each witness that he may later be called upon to testify in any case that might grow out of the investigation and report of the special grand jury. A witness who has been called to testify or produce specied records, papers and documents or other tangible things before a grand jury requested by the attorney for the Commonwealth, and who refuses to testify or produce specied records, papers and documents or other tangible things by expressly invoking his right not to incriminate himself, may be compelled to testify or produce specied records, papers and documents or other tangible things by the presiding judge. Such witness who refuses to testify or produce specied records, papers and documents or other tangible things after being ordered to do so by the presiding judge may be held in contempt and may be incarcerated until the contempt is purged by compliance with the order or the grand jury is discharged. When a witness is compelled to testify or produce specied records, papers and documents or other tangible things after expressly invoking his right not to incriminate himself, and the presiding judge has determined that the assertion of the right is bona de, the compelled testimony, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information, shall not be used against the witness in any criminal proceeding except a prosecution for perjury. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all provisions of this Code relative to immunity granted to witnesses who testify before a grand jury shall remain applicable. The foreman shall administer the oath prescribed by law for witnesses, and any member of the special grand jury may examine a witness. (1975, c. 495; 2001, c. 4; 2003, c. 565.)
{NOTE: The attorney for the Commonwealth is the public prosecutor who must be duly sworn before able to testify before the Regular Grand Jury. When Solicitor General, now U.S. supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote a legal pleading in favor of a private prosecutor in a case in the D.C. Courts. There are other older legal precedents for a private prosecutor. So a Citizen, Pro Se, or assisted by an attorney, either at-law or in-fact, duly sworn, as a private prosecutor must be able to provide to the Clerk of the Circuit Court one or more Subpoenas for a witness or witnesses to be questioned by the Grand Jury, or a Subpoena Duces Tecum for documents or evidential materials to be available for review by the Grand Jury.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 15 of 42 19.2-209. Presence of counsel for a witness. Any witness appearing before a special grand jury shall have the right to have counsel of his own procurement present when he testies. Such counsel shall have the right to consult with and advise the witness during his examination, but shall not have the right to conduct an examination of his own of the witness. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This presence of counsel for a witness is simple protection from manipulation.}
19.2-210. Presence of attorney for the Commonwealth. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall not be present at any time while the special grand jury is in session except that during the investigatory stage of its proceedings he may be present. When the special grand jury is impanelled upon motion of the court or recommendation of a regular grand jury, he may be present during the investigatory stage only when his presence is requested by the special grand jury and may interrogate witnesses provided the special grand jury requests or consents to such interrogation. When the special grand jury was impanelled upon his request, he may examine any witness called to testify or produce evidence, but his examination of a witness shall in no way affect the right of any grand juror to examine the witness. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall not be present during or after the investigative stage of the proceedings at any time while the special grand jury is discussing, evaluating or considering the testimony of a witness or is deliberating in order to reach decisions or prepare its report, except that he may be present when his legal advice is requested by the special grand jury. (1975, c. 495; 2001, c. 4.)
{NOTE: This presence of attorney for the Commonwealth, once duly sworn so able to be charged with Perjury if a false witness, is logical for presentation of the case against an accused, but is NOT proper during the stage of discussion, deliberation and decision by the Grand Jurors, thus a Pro Bono attorney, or special counsel as in 19.2-211. below, someone other than the attorney for the Commonwealth, should be present when ... legal advice is requested by the special grand jury.}
19.2-211. Provision for special counsel and other personnel. At the request of the special grand jury, the court may designate special counsel to assist it in its work, and may also provide it with appropriate specialized personnel for investigative purposes. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: History provides the example of a Grand Jury in Minneapolis that hired a private investigator, aided by an attorney, indicted the Mayor and Police Chief; who were then jailed. In New York, a Grand Jury, contrary to the public prosecutor wishes, indicted corrupt Tammany Hall employees.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 16 of 42 19.2-212. Provision for court reporter; use and disposition of notes, tapes and transcriptions. A. A court reporter shall be provided for a special grand jury to record, manually or electronically, and transcribe all oral testimony taken before a special grand jury, but such reporter shall not be present during any stage of its deliberations. The notes, tapes and transcriptions of the reporter are for the sole use of the special grand jury, and the contents thereof shall not be divulged by anyone except as hereinafter provided. After the special grand jury has completed its use of the notes, tapes and transcriptions, the foreman shall cause them to be sealed, the container dated, and delivered to the court. The court shall cause the sealed container to be kept safely. If any witness testifying before the special grand jury is prosecuted subsequently for perjury,
the court, on motion of either the attorney for the Commonwealth
or the defendant, shall permit them both to have access to the testimony given by the defendant when a witness before the special grand jury, and
the testimony shall be admissible in the perjury case. If no prosecution for perjury is instituted within three years from the date of the report of the special grand jury, the court shall cause the sealed container to be destroyed;
however, on motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth, the court may extend the time period for destruction
if the grand jury was impanelled at the request of the attorney for the Commonwealth. B. Upon motion to the presiding judge, the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be permitted to review any evidence that was presented to the special grand jury, and
shall be permitted to make notes and to duplicate portions of the evidence as he deems necessary for use in a criminal investigation or proceeding. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall maintain the secrecy of all information obtained from a review or duplication of the evidence presented to the special grand jury. Upon motion to the presiding judge by a person indicted after a special grand jury investigation, similar permission to review, note or duplicate evidence shall be extended if it appears that the permission is consistent with the ends of justice and
is necessary to reasonably inform such person of the nature of the evidence to be presented against him, or to adequately prepare his defense. (1975, c. 495; 2001, c. 4; 2003, c. 96; 2008, c. 644.)
{NOTE: This Code section is well written in that it shows that the Grand Jury controls the tapes and transcripts, giving them to (the Clerk of) the Court for retention, and both the prosecutor and the defense may by Motion to the presiding judge, gain access to those tapes and transcripts.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 17 of 42 19.2-213. Report by special grand jury; return of true bill. At the conclusion of its investigation and deliberation, a special grand jury impanelled by the court on its own motion or on recommendation of a regular grand jury
shall le a report of its ndings with the court, including therein any recommendations that it may deem appropriate,
after which it shall be discharged. Such report shall be sealed and not open to public inspection, other than by order of the court. A majority, but not less than ve, of the members of a special grand jury convened upon request of the attorney for the Commonwealth must concur in order to return a "true bill" of indictment. A "true bill" may be returned upon the testimony of, or evidence produced by,
any witness who was called by the grand jury,
upon evidence presented
or sent to it. (1975, c. 495; 1978, c. 638; 2001, c. 4.)
{NOTE: This Code section reaffirms the equivalence of the Grand Jury and the Judge, in that in both described in the first phrase, both with report of findings, with a secondary position for the attorney for the Commonwealth, who receives either a true bill or not a true bill, not a report of its findings. The phrase A majority, but not less than ve, of the members of a special grand jury given the numbers in a Special Grand Jury from 7 to 11 members create the following percentages required to return a true bill: 5 of 7 = 72.4%, 5 of 8 = 62.5%, 5 of 9 = 55.6%, 5 of 10 = 50 %, not quite a majority, 6 of 10 = 60%, 6 of 11 = 54.5%, 7 votes or above = 63.6 % or more.

19.2-213.1. Discharge of special grand jury. If a special grand jury has not led a report pursuant to 19.2-213 within six months of its impanelling, the circuit court appointing it shall discharge it; provided, however, if such court, in its discretion, determines that the special grand jury is making progress in its investigation, the court may direct that special grand jury to continue its investigation pursuant to this article. (1978, c. 638.)
{NOTE: This Code section shows yet another reason why the Regular Grand Jurors, who are assigned Grand Jury duty for a session, a time period usually three months or less, can see here that a Special Grand Jury, unless it completes its investigation, indictment or presentment (report) in less time, is planned to serve for six month, but may be continued longer by discretion of the court, so should vote to impanel a Special Grand Jury, but NONE of the Regular Grand Jurors should serve on that Special Grand Jury, and do double duty for twice as long as their original service term.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 18 of 42 19.2-214. Prosecutions resulting from report. Any bill of indictment for alleged criminal offenses, which may follow as a result of the report of the special grand jury, shall be prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth for presentation to a regular grand jury. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section makes an important point about the requirement that a bill of indictment shall be prepared, yet the situation in Culpeper County in recent years is instructive. An on-duty policeman shot and killed a woman leaving a church parking lot. No charges were led by the local police or attorney for the Commonwealth. A Grand Jury was impaneled, and despite the recommendation of the Virginia State Police investigators NOT to indict the Culpeper Policeman shooter, the Grand Jury did indict the man anyway. Whether or not directly related, both the police chief (or sheriff) and the prosecutor resigned, so a Special Prosecutor, a Commonwealth Attorney from a nearby county, was brought in to conduct the prosecution. This example relates to concerns about how to wisely apply by follow-on prosecution any indictment or report coming out of sub-paragraph (2) of 19.2-192 that relates to criminal activity, either
in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. (2)

To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends
to promote criminal activity,
either in the community
or
by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof.

These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided.
19.2-215. Costs of special grand jury. All costs incurred for services provided by the court for a special grand jury shall be paid by the Commonwealth. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to preclude any attempt to control access to the Grand Jury by the Court Clerk, independently or at the direction of the Presiding Judge, imposing a ling fee for any Citizen who seeks to present information to the Grand Jury, either Regular or Special, in relation to sub-paragraph (2) of 19.2-192 that relates to criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. Access to the Grand Jury should not be limited to Citizens with the nancial means to pay any ling fee, for it may well be that the poor person is in a better position to see graft by government employees.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 19 of 42 19.2-215.1. Functions of a multijurisdiction grand jury. The functions of a multijurisdiction grand jury are: 1. To investigate any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal violations of: a. Title 10.1 for which punishment as a felony is authorized; b. 13.1-520; c. 18.2-47 and 18.2-48; d. 18.2-111 and 18.2-112; e. Article 6 ( 18.2-59 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2; f. Article 7.1 ( 18.2-152.1 et seq.) of Chapter 5 of Title 18.2; g. Article 1 ( 18.2-247 et seq.) and Article 1.1 ( 18.2-265.1 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2; h. Article 1 ( 18.2-325 et seq.) and Article 1.1:1 ( 18.2-340.15 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2, Chapter 29 ( 59.1-364 et seq.) of Title 59.1 or any other provision prohibiting, limiting, regulating, or otherwise affecting gaming or gambling activity; i. 18.2-434, when violations occur before a multijurisdiction grand jury; j. Article 2 ( 18.2-438 et seq.) and Article 3 ( 18.2-446 et seq.) of Chapter 10 of Title 18.2; k. 18.2-460 for which punishment as a felony is authorized; l. Article 1.1 ( 18.2-498.1 et seq.) of Chapter 12 of Title 18.2; m. Article 1 ( 32.1-310 et seq.) of Chapter 9 of Title 32.1; n. Chapter 4.2 ( 59.1-68.6 et seq.) of Title 59.1; o. Article 9 ( 3.2-6570 et seq.) of Chapter 65 of Title 3.2; p. Article 1 ( 18.2-30 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2; q. Article 2.1 ( 18.2-46.1 et seq.) and Article 2.2 ( 18.2-46.4 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2; r. Article 5 ( 18.2-186 et seq.) and Article 6 ( 18.2-191 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 18.2; s. Chapter 6.1 ( 59.1-92.1 et seq.) of Title 59.1; t. 18.2-178 where the violation involves insurance fraud; and u.
Any other provision of law when such condition is discovered in the course of an investigation that a multijurisdiction grand jury is otherwise authorized to undertake and
to investigate any condition that involves or tends to promote any attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to violate the laws enumerated in this section. 2. To report evidence of any criminal offense enumerated in subdivision 1 to the attorney for the Commonwealth or United States attorney of any jurisdiction where such offense could be prosecuted or investigated and, when appropriate, to the Attorney General.

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 20 of 42 3. To consider bills of indictment prepared by a special counsel to determine whether there is sufcient probable cause to return each such indictment as a "true bill." Only bills of indictment which allege an offense enumerated in subdivision 1 may be submitted to a multijurisdiction grand jury. 4. The provisions of this section shall not abrogate the authority of an attorney for the Commonwealth in a particular jurisdiction to determine the course of a prosecution in that jurisdiction. (1983, c. 543; 1991, c. 616; 1995, c. 552; 2000, c. 359; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2004, cc. 396, 435; 2008, c. 704; 2009, c. 491; 2011, c. 504.)
{NOTE: This Code section is a shopping list of crimes in the Commonwealth, that beside each in blue notes will be attempted to provide a common language description for better understanding, to be more useful by common citizens.
Interesting here is the provision for the multi-jurisdictional Grand Jury to have the options To report evidence of any criminal offense to the attorney for the Commonwealth, OR the United States Attorney for the district, and when appropriate, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet how is dened when appropriate? That denition should be provided by the Grand Jurors themselves, in the same way, the Grand Jurors decide whether to provide their report to the U.S. Attorney or the attorney for the Commonwealth.
Sub-paragraph 4. protects the province of authority for prosecution of an attorney for the Commonwealth in a particular county or city, yet the question remains, what about the situation where part of the crime, or incidents of a kind of crime, that occur in other jurisdictions, does that preclude involvement, or require involvement?
Sadly, as in the Winchester Police Notes of 02-17-99 a trusted informant reported that the citys Commonwealth Attorney Paul Thomson is skimming money from drug dealers., and in the future, someone like that, with dirty hands, could cleverly obstruct justice from the inside of the prosecution effort, that relates to sub-paragraph (2) of 19.2-192 that states: criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or
ofcial thereof.

In this case, the report of drug dealer money was stated to be provided to the FBI, but twelve years later, in May 2011, the FBI Special Agent mentioned in the same Police Notes was interviewed where he stated he never received this information from anyone in the Winchester Police Department. All is to say, that prosecution by an honest prosecutor in only one of several jurisdictions where the crimes were committed may be the wisest way to avoid another corrupt yet clever prosecutors obstruction of justice.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 21 of 42 19.2-215.2. Application for such grand jury. Provided the Attorney General has approved the application in writing prior to submission, application for a multi-jurisdiction grand jury
may be made to the Supreme Court of Virginia
by two or more attorneys for the Commonwealth from jurisdictions which would be within the original scope of the investigation. The application shall be in writing and shall state (i) which jurisdictions will be involved in the original scope of the investigation, (ii) in which jurisdiction it is requested that the multi-jurisdiction grand jury be convened, (iii) the name or names of the attorneys for the Commonwealth or their assistants who will serve as special counsel to the grand jury, (iv) the name of the attorney who shall direct the grand jury proceedings. The presiding judge may extend or limit the jurisdictional territory of the investigation, for good cause shown, upon the motion of a grand jury already convened. Notice of every such application shall be given to the attorneys for the Commonwealth in the jurisdictions named in the application and, if the original scope of the investigation is extended into other jurisdictions, notice of such extension shall be given to the attorneys for the Commonwealth in the jurisdictions into which the investigation is extended. (1983, c. 543.)
{NOTE: This Code section describes a situation where the Multi-jurisdictional Grand Jury is an extension of sub-paragraph (1) of 19.2-191.
Functions of a grand jury.
The functions of a grand jury are twofold: (1) To consider bills of indictment prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth and to determine whether as to each such bill there is sufcient probable cause to return such indictment "a true bill." But it does not seem to reflect sub-paragraph (2)}: (2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided. At least in part due to no mention of a multi-jurisdictional grand jury.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 22 of 42 19.2-215.3. When impaneled; impaneling order. Upon application by two or more attorneys for the Commonwealth, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, any justice designated by the Chief Justice, may within twenty days thereafter order the impaneling of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury for a term of twelve months. The term of such a grand jury may be extended for successive periods of not more than six months by the Chief Justice, or by any justice designated by the Chief Justice, upon the petition of a majority of the members of the grand jury. The impaneling order shall designate the jurisdiction requested on the application as the jurisdiction where the multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be convened and shall, unless all judges of that circuit have recused themselves, appoint a judge of the circuit court of that jurisdiction as the presiding judge. The impaneling order shall also designate special counsel and each special counsel who will assist the multi-jurisdiction grand jury as listed in the application. The presiding judge shall substitute or appoint additional special counsel upon motion of special counsel. (1983, c. 543; 2010, c. 438.)
{NOTE: This Code section mentions only the avenue of two or more attorneys for the Commonwealth making an application for a multi-jurisdictional Grand Jury, and subsequent actions by the Chief Justice, any justice designated by the Chief Justice, a Presiding Judge, and a Special Counsel or additional special counsel. However, in similar spirit as stated in 19.2-211.
Provision for special counsel and other personnel. At the request of the special grand jury, the court may designate special counsel to assist it in its work, and may also provide it with appropriate specialized personnel for investigative purposes.
The multi-jurisdictional Grand Jury members should be able to call on special counsel or other specialized personnel for investigation of THEIR OWN CHOOSING (within limits), not subject to the whims or wishes of any Presiding Judge, or designated justice, so to avoid any potential of compromise in a situation such as in Pennsylvania where judges of several jurisdictions were involved in cash-back payments for children sent to privately operated children detention facilities. Similar questionable privately operated children detention facilities such as Pine Rest in SW Virginia and Hampton, Hallmark outside Richmond, and many others exist in Virginia, so:
(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 23 of 42 19.2-215.4. Number and qualications of jurors; grand jury list; when convened; compensation of jurors. A. A multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall consist of not less than seven nor more than 11 members. Each member of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be a citizen of this Commonwealth, 18 years of age or older, and a resident of this Commonwealth for one year and of one of the jurisdictions named in the application for six months. B. The presiding judge shall determine the number of grand jurors to be drawn and shall draw them so that, to the extent practicable, each of the jurisdictions named in the application is represented by at least one juror residing in that jurisdiction, but in no event shall said panel have more than 11 members. The grand jurors shall be summoned from a list prepared by the presiding judge. In the preparation of this list, the presiding judge shall select only persons who have been selected as regular grand jurors pursuant to the provisions of 19.2-194 in the jurisdiction named in the application. Members of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall possess the same qualications as those prescribed for members of a regular grand jury, including indifference in the cause. C. The provisions of 19.2-192 dealing with secrecy in grand jury proceedings are incorporated herein by reference. D. The presiding judge shall determine the time, date and place within the designated jurisdiction where the multi-jurisdiction grand jury is to be convened. The presiding judge shall also appoint one of the grand jurors to serve as foreman. Members of the multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be compensated according to the provisions of 19.2-205. The expense of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be borne by the Commonwealth. (1983, c. 543; 2008, c. 644.)
{NOTE: This Code section furthers the evidence that the Multi-Jurisdictional Grand Jury has very little if any accountability to the Common Citizens, but is rather a wholly owned subsidiary of the Criminal Justice operations of Virginia, that include judges and attorneys for the Commonwealth, both members of the Virginia State Bar, an agency of the supreme Court.
Granted the administrative requirements of selecting at least one Juror from each jurisdiction where the crimes have alleged to have been committed, up to 11 maximum number of Jurors, but this section could be re-written so that Citizen elected Clerks of the Courts of the several jurisdictions are the Constitutional Ofcers designated to compile a randomly selected sub-set of their Juror list, from which the Presiding Judge selects the several Grand Jurors.
Sub-paragraph (D) introduces a new, or previously unstated, feature of meetings of a Grand Jury, that the place for convening may be different than the Courthouse.
Sub-paragraph (E) should be re-written to state that the Grand Jurors randomly selected from lists provided by Clerks of the Circuit Court of the involved jurisdictions will elect one of their members to serve as Foreman.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 24 of 42 19.2-215.5. Subpoena power; counsel for witness; oath. A multi-jurisdiction grand jury has statewide subpoena power
and may subpoena persons to appear before it to testify
or to produce evidence in the form of specied records, papers, documents or other
tangible things. Mileage and such other reasonable expenses as are approved by the presiding judge shall be paid such persons from funds appropriated for such purpose. A witness before a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be entitled to the presence of counsel in the grand jury room, but he may not participate in the proceedings. The foreman shall administer the oath required by law for witnesses. (1983, c. 543.)
{NOTE: This Code section provides considerable power to the Multi-Jurisdictional Grand Jury with statewide power of subpoena, yet the Special Grand Jury that can be impanelled by Citizens by information to the Regular Grand Jury that then votes to form the Special Grand Jury, needs to have the power to extend the jurisdiction of Special Grand Jury investigations, thereby becoming a self-created multi-jurisdictional Grand Jury without the Code required plan of the Attorney General or intervention of the Chief Justice; or approval of any Presiding Judge. Only in this way can crimes being investigated in their home jurisdiction that extend to other jurisdictions able to be properly investigated, especially when the crimes are being committed by any
governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof.} 19.2-215.6. Role and presence of special counsel; examination of witnesses. Special counsel may be present during the investigatory stage of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury proceeding and may examine any witness who is called to testify or produce evidence. The examination of a witness by special counsel shall in no way affect the right of any grand juror to examine the witness. Special counsel, however, may not be present at any time during the deliberations of a multijurisdiction grand jury except when the grand jury requests the legal advice of special counsel as to specic questions of law. (1983, c. 543.)
{NOTE: This Code section discusses the involvement in investigations and limitations on the Special Counsel. Yet the important provision is there can be a Special Counsel OTHER THAN an attorney for the Commonwealth, who is the local prosecutor, so to introduce the possibility of a bit more objectivity in the investigation process. The Public Broadcasting Service airing on April 16, 2012 of the award winning Ken Burns documentary The Central Park Five shows where in 1990 the New York police interrogation techniques confused and frightened black and Hispanic teen age boys into confessing to a rape that none of them committed. Innocent boys became broken men in prison. The police and prosecutors knew that none of the ve DNA matched the DNA of the rapist. By chance, many years later the rapist met one of the innocent in prison, and confessed to the crime, after which all the decade old convictions were vacated.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 25 of 42 19.2-215.7. Warnings given to witnesses; when witness in contempt; use of testimony compelled after witness invokes right against self-incrimination. A. Every witness testifying before a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall be warned by special counsel or by the foreman of the grand jury that he need not answer any question that would tend to incriminate him, and that he may later be called upon to testify in any case that may result from the grand jury proceedings. B. A witness who has been called to testify or produce evidence before a multi-jurisdiction grand jury, and who refuses to testify or produce evidence by expressly invoking his right not to incriminate himself, may be compelled to testify or produce evidence by the presiding judge. A witness who refuses to testify or produce evidence after being ordered to do so by the presiding judge may be held in contempt and may be incarcerated until the contempt is purged by compliance with the order. C. When a witness is compelled to testify or produce evidence after expressly invoking his right not to incriminate himself, and the presiding judge has determined that the assertion of the right is bona de, the compelled testimony, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information, shall not be used against the witness in any criminal proceeding except a prosecution for perjury. (1983, c. 543.)
{NOTE: This Code section is much like aspects of 19.2-208. Subpoena power of special
grand jury. } 19.2-215.8. Returning a "true bill" of indictment; jurisdiction to be set out. In order to return a "true bill" of indictment, a majority, but in no instance less than ve, of the multi-jurisdiction grand jurors must concur in that nding. A multi-jurisdiction grand jury may return a "true bill" of indictment upon the testimony of, or evidence produced by, any witness who was called by the grand jury, upon evidence presented to it by special counsel, or upon evidence sent to it by the presiding judge. Every "true bill" of indictment returned by a multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall state in which jurisdiction or jurisdictions the offense is alleged to have occurred. Thereafter, when venue is proper in more than one jurisdiction, the presiding judge who directed the grand jury proceeding shall elect in which one of the jurisdictions named in the indictment the indictment is to be prosecuted. (1983, c. 543.)

This Code section compares with 19.2-213. Report by special grand jury; return of true bill. that states: A "true bill" may be returned upon the testimony of, or {NOTE:
evidence produced by, any witness who was called by the grand jury, upon evidence presented or sent to it. but does not seem to provide for evidence presented or sent to it by
concerned Citizens. Further, a Grand Jury Presentment or Report seems not an option to it.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 26 of 42 19.2-215.9. Court reporter provided; safekeeping of transcripts, notes, etc.; when disclosure permitted; access to record of testimony and evidence. A. A court reporter shall be provided for a multi-jurisdiction grand jury to record, manually or electronically, and transcribe all oral testimony taken before a multi-jurisdiction grand jury, but such a reporter shall not be present during any stage of its deliberations. Such transcription shall include the original or copies of all documents, reports or other evidence presented to the multi-jurisdiction grand jury. The notes, tapes and transcriptions of the reporter are for the use of the multi-jurisdiction grand jury, and the contents thereof shall not be used or divulged by anyone except as provided in this article. After the multi-jurisdiction grand jury has completed its use of the notes, tapes and transcriptions, the foreman shall cause them to be delivered to the presiding judge. B. The presiding judge shall cause the notes, tapes and transcriptions or other evidence to be kept safely. Upon motion to the presiding judge, special counsel shall be permitted to review any of the evidence which was presented to the multi-jurisdiction grand jury, and shall be permitted to make notes and to duplicate portions of the evidence as he deems necessary for use in a criminal investigation or proceeding. Special counsel shall maintain the secrecy of all information obtained from a review or duplication of the evidence presented to the multi-jurisdiction grand jury, except that this information may be disclosed pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 2 of 19.2-215.1. Upon motion to the presiding judge by a person indicted by a multi-jurisdiction grand jury, similar permission to review, note or duplicate evidence shall be extended if it appears that the permission is consistent with the ends of justice and is necessary to reasonably inform such person of the nature of the evidence to be presented against him, or to adequately prepare his defense. C. If any witness who voluntarily testied or produced evidence before the multi-jurisdiction grand jury is prosecuted on the basis of his testimony or the evidence he produced, or if any witness who was compelled to testify or to produce evidence is prosecuted for perjury on the basis of his testimony or the evidence he produced before the multi-jurisdiction grand jury, the presiding judge, on motion of either the Commonwealth or the defendant, shall permit both the Commonwealth and the defendant access to the testimony of or evidence produced by the defendant before the multi-jurisdiction grand jury. The testimony and the evidence produced by the defendant voluntarily before the multi-jurisdiction grand jury shall then be admissible in the trial of the criminal offense with which the defendant is charged, for the purpose of impeaching the defendant. (1983, c. 543.)

This Code section compares with the Special Grand Jury section 19.2-212. Provision for court reporter; use and disposition of notes, tapes and transcriptions. } {NOTE:

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 27 of 42 19.2-215.10. Participation by Ofce of Attorney General; assistance of special counsel permitted in certain prosecutions. Upon request by the applicants or upon motion to the presiding judge by special counsel, the Ofce of Attorney General may participate as special counsel in the multi-jurisdiction grand jury proceedings and any prosecutions arising therefrom. In any prosecution arising out of the multi-jurisdiction grand jury, the attorney for the Commonwealth may also obtain the assistance of the special counsel to the grand jury as a special assistant attorney for the Commonwealth. (1983, c. 543.)

{NOTE: This Code section is a bit ambiguous in writing Upon request by the applicants, for the reader must refer back to see the applicants are attorneys for the Commonwealth, NOT individual Citizens who present or send information of criminal activity to the MultiJurisdictional Grand Jury, or even the randomly selected Grand Jurors of a Regular or Special Grand Jury, unless the reader, meanders through the Virginia Code to extract one of the functions of a Special Grand Jury is to extend the range of its investigations. Compare with 19.2-213. Report by special grand jury; return of true bill. that states: A "true bill" may be
returned upon the testimony of, or evidence produced by, any witness who was called by the grand jury, upon evidence presented or sent to it.} 19.2-215.11. Discharge of grand jury. At any time during the original or extended term of a multi-jurisdiction grand jury, the presiding judge may discharge the grand jury if, in the opinion of the presiding judge, the existence of the multi-jurisdiction grand jury is no longer necessary. (1983, c. 543.)

{NOTE: This Code section as written is very vulnerable to undue inuence by one judge or persons who can inuence that one presiding judge, for if the presiding judge judges that a Multi-Jurisdictional Grand Jury has become a Runaway Grand Jury, or that is to say, really doing its duty zealously and thoroughly investigating crime as provided for in 19.2-192.
(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. Thereby, this section allows a Presiding Judge who is a governmental authority, agency or ofcial to abort the proper functioning of a Grand Jury, in this case a Multi-Jurisdictional Grand Jury, but his unilateral decision the presiding judge may discharge the grand jury, where Discharge is when in his opinion the multijurisdiction grand jury is no longer necessary, or is unnecessary because its investigation is getting too close to exposing criminal activity by fellow judges or other members of the Bar, in those rare cases where such crimes are underway.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 28 of 42 Chapter 14
Indictments, Presentments, and Informations

Code Sections 19.2-216 to 19.2-238
- pages 28 to 38
19.2-216.
Denition of indictment, presentment and information. 19.2-217.
When information led; prosecution for felony to be by indictment or presentment; waiver; process to compel appearance of accused. 19.2-217.1.
Central le of capital murder indictments. 19.2-218.
Preliminary hearing required for person arrested on charge of felony; waiver. 19.2-218.1.
Preliminary hearings involving certain sexual crimes against spouses. 19.2-218.2.
Hearing before juvenile and domestic relations district court required for persons accused of certain violations against their spouses. 19.2-219.
When capias need not be issued; summons; judgment. 19.2-220.
Contents of indictment in general. 19.2-221.
Form of prosecutions generally; murder and manslaughter. 19.2-222.
(Repealed by Acts 1996, c. 676.) 19.2-223.
Charging several acts of embezzlement; description of money. 19.2-224.
In prosecution for forgery, unnecessary to set forth copy of forged instrument. 19.2-225.
Allegation of intent. 19.2-226.
What defects in indictments not to vitiate them. 19.2-227.
When judgment not to be arrested or reversed. 19.2-228.
Name and address of complaining witness to be written on indictment, etc., for misdemeanor. 19.2-229.
When complaining witness required to give security for costs. 19.2-230.
Bill of particulars. 19.2-231.
Amendment of indictment, presentment or information. 19.2-232.
What process to be awarded against accused on indictment, etc. 19.2-233.
How awarded, directed, returnable and executed. 19.2-234.
Procedure when person arrested under capias. 19.2-235.
Clerks to mail process to ofcers in other counties, etc. 19.2-236.
Where process of arrest may be executed. 19.2-237.
Process on indictment or presentment for misdemeanor. 19.2-238.
Summons against corporation; proceedings; expense of publication.

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 29 of 42 19.2-216. Denition of indictment, presentment and information. An indictment is a written accusation of crime, prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth and returned "a true bill" upon the oath or afrmation of a legally impanelled grand jury. A presentment is a written accusation of crime prepared and returned by a grand jury from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them. An information is a written accusation of crime or a complaint for forfeiture of property or money or for imposition of a penalty, prepared and presented by a competent public ofcial upon his oath of ofce. (1975, c. 495.)

{NOTE: This Code section is a disturbing in its very limited denition of an information to being a competent public ofcial rather than ANY competent Citizen, and then even the word competent introduces the question of who is to judge who is competent, either public ofcial or common Citizen. Properly, the Grand Jurors should decide WHO is COMPETENT, for otherwise, the indirectly elected Presiding Judge, or the directly elected attorney for the Commonwealth, or even the directly elected Clerk of the Circuit Court become a gate-keeper and thereby nullify the essential independence of the Grand Jury.
This Code section needs to be re-written to simply insert after the rst phrase An information is a written accusation of crime from ANY CITIZEN of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or that allows a separate category of information or for imposition of a penalty, prepared and presented by a competent public ofcial upon his oath of ofce. for the Grand Jury to discern if the request for a penalty to be imposed is just.
19.2-217. When information led; prosecution for felony to be by indictment or presentment; waiver; process to compel appearance of accused. An information may be led by the attorney for the Commonwealth based upon a complaint in writing veried by the oath of a competent witness; but no person shall be put upon trial for any felony, unless an indictment or presentment shall have rst been found or made by a grand jury in a court of competent jurisdiction or unless such person, by writing signed by such person before the court having jurisdiction to try such felony or before the judge of such court shall have waived such indictment or presentment, in which event he may be tried on a warrant or information. If the accused be in custody, or has been recognized or summoned to answer such information, presentment or indictment, no other process shall be necessary; but the court may, in its discretion, issue process to compel the appearance of the accused. (Code 1950, 19.1-162; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)

{NOTE: This Code section shows that a suspect can be arrested so to be in custody, and then either a warrant obtained from a Magistrate (or Judge in the role of a magistrate), or an information presented to a Grand Jury to issue an indictment.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 30 of 42 19.2-217.1. Central le of capital murder indictments. Upon the return by a grand jury of an indictment for capital murder and the arrest of the defendant, the clerk of the circuit court in which such indictment is returned shall forthwith le a certied copy of the indictment with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia. All such indictments shall be maintained in a single place by the clerk of the Supreme Court, and shall be available to members of the public upon request. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall not be (i) a basis upon which an indictment may be quashed or deemed invalid; (ii) deemed error upon which a conviction may be reversed or a sentence vacated; or (iii) a basis upon which a court may prevent or delay execution of a sentence. (1993, c. 319.)
{NOTE: This Code section is constructive in that it allows the Virginia supreme Court to be informed about capital murder cases. Capital Murder is in essence Murder aggravated by other concurrent crimes, such as Robbery or Abduction. It seems that along with such certied copy of the indictment should also be led a Bill of Particulars prepared by the attorney for the Commonwealth to support both the murder charge, and the aggravating crimes.}
19.2-218. Preliminary hearing required for person arrested on charge of felony; waiver. No person who is arrested on a charge of felony shall be denied a preliminary hearing upon the question of whether there is reasonable ground to believe that he committed the offense and no indictment shall be returned in a court of record against any such person prior to such hearing unless such hearing is waived in writing by the accused. (Code 1950, 19.1-163.1; 1960, c. 389; 1975, c. 495.)
This Code section is curious in its wording No person who is arrested on a charge of felony shall be denied a preliminary hearing for likely any person arrested is {NOTE: put before a Preliminary Hearing, whether or not the arrested person wants one.
Now a question is raised, How many preliminary hearings is an arrested person put before, one, or a? Or are two preliminary hearings acceptable, or three, or four, or ve? Where does the concept of justice called double jeopardy protection come into play?
Should the Grand Jury be provided a copy of the tapes and transcripts of any felony Preliminary Hearing when a Bill of Indictment is presented to it by the attorney for the Commonwealth so it can hear for itself, or read what was said, at the Preliminary Hearing, so it is better equipped to fulll its function as the shield part of the Sword and Shield duties?}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 31 of 42 19.2-218.1. Preliminary hearings involving certain sexual crimes against spouses. A. In any preliminary hearing of a charge for a violation under 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1, or 18.2-67.2 where the complaining witness is the spouse of the accused, upon a nding of probable cause the court may request that its court services unit, in consultation with any appropriate social services organization, local community services board, or other community mental health services organization, prepare a report analyzing the feasibility of providing counseling or other forms of therapy for the accused and the probability such treatment will be successful. Based upon this report and any other relevant evidence, the court may, with the consent of the accused, the complaining witness and the attorney for the Commonwealth in any case involving a violation of 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1, or 18.2-67.2, authorize the accused to submit to and complete a designated course of counseling or therapy. In such case, the hearing shall be adjourned until such time as counseling or therapy is completed or terminated. Upon the completion of counseling or therapy by the accused and after consideration of a nal evaluation to be furnished to the court by the person responsible for conducting such counseling or therapy and such further report of the court services unit as the court may require, and after consideration of the views of the complaining witness, the court, in its discretion, may discharge the accused if the court nds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and be in the best interest of the complaining witness. B. No statement or disclosure by the accused concerning the alleged offense made during counseling or any other form of therapy ordered pursuant to this section or 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1, 18.2-67.2, or 19.2-218.2 may be used against the accused in any trial as evidence, nor shall any evidence against the accused be admitted which was discovered through such statement or disclosure. (1986, c. 516; 2005, c. 631; 2012, cc. 476, 507.)

{NOTE: This Code section added in 1986, and amended in 2005 and 2012, reects the increasing concern of rights of spouses, and protections for spouses, in a marriage; and the efforts to engage in counseling or therapy rather than immediate arrest or indictment so to address he said -she said concerns, and the public policy goal to promote maintenance of the family unit.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 32 of 42 19.2-218.2. Hearing before juvenile and domestic relations district court required for persons accused of certain violations against their spouses. A. In any case involving a violation of 18.2-61, 18.2-67.1, or 18.2-67.2 where the complaining witness is the spouse of the accused, where a preliminary hearing pursuant to 19.2-218.1 has not been held prior to indictment or trial, the court shall refer the case to the appropriate juvenile and domestic relations district court for a hearing to determine whether counseling or therapy is appropriate prior to further disposition unless the hearing is waived in writing by the accused. The court conducting this hearing may order counseling or therapy for the accused in compliance with the guidelines set forth in 19.2-218.1. B. After such hearing pursuant to which the accused has completed counseling or therapy and upon the recommendation of the juvenile and domestic relations district court judge conducting the hearing, the judge of the circuit court may dismiss the charge with the consent of the attorney for the Commonwealth and if the court nds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and be in the best interest of the complaining witness. (1986, c. 516; 2005, c. 631.)

{NOTE: This Code section fails to provide for a person accused by a spouse to decline a referral to the juvenile and domestic relations court, but rather to choose to have the case referred to a Grand Jury, and even request to be a witness, with or without counsel, before the Grand Jury when the charges against the accused are presented.
In some cases, whether infrequent or frequent is not clear due to absence of available case statistics provided by the Virginia Court System, the accused spouse (usually the husband) is treated as Guilty by the JDR District Court hearing, so it could be wise strategy for the innocent accused to go before a Jury of ones peers rather than a judge who is part of a justice system with its counseling and therapy adjuncts that impose costly prescriptions, or sentences, or penalties of counseling or therapy. Inherent in this section wording is a Plea for the
accused to accept costly counseling or therapy or face costs to defend prosecution.} 19.2-219. When capias need not be issued; summons; judgment. No capias need be issued on a presentment or indictment of an offense for which there is no punishment but a ne or forfeiture, limited to an amount not exceeding twenty dollars; but a summons to answer such presentment or indictment may be issued against the accused; and if it be served ten days before the return day thereof, and he does not appear, judgment may be rendered against him for the penalty. If he appear, the court may, unless he demand a jury, hear and determine the matter and give judgment thereon. (Code 1950, 19.1-164; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section again shows the importance to the Citizen of demanding a jury so to avoid being railroaded by the courts criminal justice establishment.of prosecutor and police.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 33 of 42 19.2-220. Contents of indictment in general. The indictment or information shall be a plain, concise and denite written statement, (1) naming the accused, (2) describing the offense charged, (3) identifying the county, city or town in which the accused committed the offense, and (4) reciting that the accused committed the offense on or about a certain date. In describing the offense, the indictment or information may use the name given to the offense by the common law, or the indictment or information may state so much of the common law or statutory denition of the offense as is sufcient to advise what offense is charged. (1975, c. 495.)

{NOTE: This Code section should be clearly communicated to the members of the Grand Jury in several ways, to include being added to the Handbook for Grand Jurors prepared by the supreme Court of Virginia, so the Jurors are not intimidated by the attorney for the Commonwealth or the Presiding Judge or any police witness so to think there is a requirement that they, or a citizen before them presenting information that may lead to a Grand Jury issuance of an indictment, that a number and crime description as given in the Code of Virginia must be given, for that is not true.
The law, and the common law, is to serve the Citizen, not to provide an employment insurance system for privileged persons who are able to be members of the Virginia State Bar, a subsidiary agency of the supreme Court of Virginia, or a means whereby justice employees intimidate Grand Jurors by making them feel they do not know enough of the law to make a wise decision without advice from the attorney for the Commonwealth, or Special Counsel appointed by a Presiding Judge.
If the Grand Jurors have questions, to perform the Shield aspect of their functions as the Grand Jury, the Jurors should request an independent, non-prosecutor, legal counsel to advise on confusing questions of law, otherwise, there is an inherent Conict of Interest in an unbiased service of Justice to have any prosecution oriented Special Counsel or attorney for the Commonwealth provide advice to the Grand Jury.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 34 of 42 19.2-221. Form of prosecutions generally; murder and manslaughter. The prosecutions for offenses against the Commonwealth, unless otherwise provided, shall be by presentment, indictment or information. While any form of presentment, indictment or information which informs the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him shall be good the following shall be deemed sufcient for murder and manslaughter: CommonwealthofVirginia ....................county(orcity)to-wit: The grand jurors of the Commonwealth of Virginia, inandforthebodyofthe county (or city) of .........., upontheiroathspresentthatA..........B.........., onthe..........dayof..........,20.........., inthe county (or city) of .................... feloniouslydidkillandmurder one C.......... D....... againstthepeaceanddignityoftheCommonwealth. A grand jury may, in case of homicide, which in their opinion amounts to manslaughter only, and not to murder, nd an indictment against the accused for manslaughter and in such case the indictment shall be sufcient if it be in form or effect as follows: CommonwealthofVirginia ....................county(orcity)to-wit: The grand jurors of the Commonwealth of Virginia, inandforthebodyofthe county (or city) of .........., upontheiroathspresentthatA..........B.........., onthe..........dayof..........,20.........., inthe county (or city) of ................. feloniouslyandunlawfullydidkill and slay oneC..........D.........., againstthepeaceanddignityofthe Commonwealth. (Code 1950, 19.1-166; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section gives two examples of the simple wording that is all that is required for an indictment by the Grand Jury. This section, combined with the above Code section that states Common Law description is sufcient, establishes that the average Citizen on the Grand Jury, without counsel from a legal professional or Bar member, can render one of the most critical steps in the process of Justice, the indictment.
Not to be forgotten is the history of the Grand Jury as the Sword and the Shield, that the Grand Jurors may refuse to vote a True Bill when the evidence presented by the attorney for the Commonwealth is tainted or tampered with, or when testimony is unclear or contradictory, or tampered with by Plea Deals with the prosecutor.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 35 of 42 19.2-222. Repealed by Acts 1996, c. 676.
{NOTE: This Code section being repealed causes the concerned Citizen to wonder why.}
19.2-223. Charging several acts of embezzlement; description of money. In a prosecution against a person accused of embezzling or fraudulently converting to his own use bullion, money, bank notes or other security for money or items of personal property subject to larceny it shall be lawful in the same indictment or accusation to charge and thereon to proceed against the accused for any number of distinct acts of such embezzlements or fraudulent conversions which may have been committed by him within six months from the rst to the last of the acts charged in the indictment; and it shall be sufcient to allege the embezzlement or fraudulent conversion to be of money without specifying any particular money, gold, silver, note or security. Such allegation, so far as it regards the description of the property, shall be sustained if the accused be proved to have embezzled any bullion, money, bank note or other security for money or items of personal property subject to larceny although the particular species be not proved. And in a prosecution for the larceny of United States currency or for obtaining United States currency by a false pretense or token, or for receiving United States currency knowing the same to have been stolen, it shall be sufcient if the accused be proved guilty of the larceny of national bank notes or United States treasury notes, certicates for either gold or silver coin, fractional coin, currency, or any other form of money issued by the United States government, or of obtaining the same by false pretense or token, or of receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen although the particular species be not proved. (Code 1950, 19.1-168; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1989, c. 370.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to eliminate the requirement for specics in regard to embezzlement charges.}
19.2-224. In prosecution for forgery, unnecessary to set forth copy of forged instrument. In a prosecution for forging or altering any instrument or other thing, or attempting to employ as true any forged instrument or other thing, or for any of the offenses mentioned in Article 1 ( 18.2-168 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 18.2, it shall not be necessary to set forth any copy or facsimile of such instrument or other thing; but it shall be sufcient to describe the same in such manner as would sustain an indictment for stealing such instrument or other thing, supposing it to be the subject of larceny. (Code 1950, 19.1-169; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to eliminate the requirement for specics in regard to forgery charges.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 36 of 42 19.2-225. Allegation of intent. Where an intent to injure, defraud or cheat is required to constitute an offense, it shall be sufcient, in an indictment or accusation therefor, to allege generally an intent to injure, defraud or cheat without naming the person intended to be injured, defrauded or cheated; and it shall be sufcient, and not be deemed a variance, if there appear to be an intent to injure, defraud or cheat the United States, or any state, or any county, corporation, ofcer or person. (Code 1950, 19.1-170; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to eliminate the requirement for specics in any allegation of intent to injure, defraud or cheat that could lead to charges.}
19.2-226. What defects in indictments not to vitiate them. No indictment or other accusation shall be quashed or deemed invalid: (1) For omitting to set forth that it is upon the oaths of the jurors or upon their oaths and afrmations; (2) For the insertion of the words "upon their oath," instead of "upon their oaths"; (3) For not in terms alleging that the offense was committed "within the jurisdiction of the court" when the averments show that the case is one of which the court has jurisdiction; (4) For the omission or misstatement of the title, occupation, estate, or degree of the accused or of the name or place of his residence; (5) For omitting the words "with force and arms" or the statement of any particular kind of force and arms; (6) For omitting to state, or stating imperfectly, the time at which the offense was committed when time is not the essence of the offense; (7) For failing to allege the kind or value of an instrument which caused death or to allege that it was of no value; (8) For omitting to charge the offense to be "against the form of the statute or statutes"; (9) For the omission or insertion of any other words of mere form or surplusage; or (10) For omitting or stating incorrectly the Virginia crime code references for the particular offense or offenses covered. Nor shall it be abated for any misnomer of the accused; but the court may, in case of a misnomer appearing before or in the course of a trial, forthwith cause the indictment or accusation to be amended according to the fact. (Code 1950, 19.1-172; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 2003, c. 148.)
{NOTE: This Code section gives many specics of why an indictment will stand, even when administrative errors are present. It would be improved by giving examples of when indictments can be vitiated or vacated, such as when the prosecutor (attorney for the Commonwealth), or police witnesses, provide false evidence or testimony, or conceal exculpatory evidence.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 37 of 42 19.2-227. When judgment not to be arrested or reversed. Judgment in any criminal case shall not be arrested or reversed upon any exception or objection made after a verdict to the indictment or other accusation, unless it be so defective as to be in violation of the Constitution. (Code 1950, 19.1-165; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to be a catch-all statement, phrased in the negative, and worded so to be quite confusing, of when an indictment is to be arrested or reversed unless
after a verdict to the indictment or other accusation and unless it unless it be so defective as to be in violation of the Constitution.
In a positive phrasing, does this say: Judgment in any criminal case SHALL be arrested, reversed, or vacated upon a motion for exception or objection is led to the Grand Jury, after a verdict has been given following from the indictment, (or other accusation adds to the confusion) whenever Rights secured by this Constitution for the United States of America, its Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of Virginia appear to have been violated by the process of prosecution in Virginia courts.} 19.2-228. Name and address of complaining witness to be written on indictment, etc., for misdemeanor. In a prosecution for a misdemeanor the name and address of the complaining witness, if there be one, shall be written at the foot of the presentment, indictment or information when it is made, found or led. In case the grand jury that brings in such presentment or indictment or the attorney for the Commonwealth who les such information fail to write the name of a complaining witness at the foot of the presentment, indictment or information, then the name of a complaining witness may be entered of record as such by the court on the motion of the defendant or the attorney for the Commonwealth at any time before the judgment. (Code 1950, 19.1-173; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section seems to introduce contradiction to other sections for it states that the attorney for the Commonwealth les such information, whereas other sections indicate that informations come from OTHER than the attorney for the Commonwealth, who is to present Bills of Indictment, of which the Grand Jury votes upon as either a True Bill or Not a True Bill.
Again, this seems to open the door for the common citizen to appear before the Grand Jury, not only for Felony crimes, but for Misdemeanor crimes, by the name of the complaining witness being written on the indictment.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 38 of 42 19.2-229. When complaining witness required to give security for costs. For good cause the court may require a complaining witness to give security for the costs and if he fails to do so dismiss the prosecution at his costs. (Code 1950, 19.1-174; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section poses a potential problem by erecting a nancial obstacle for a Citizen who attempts to exercise his right and duty to inform the Grand Jury in accordance with
19.2-191. Functions of a grand jury.(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. These functions may be exercised by either a special grand jury or a regular grand jury as hereinafter provided.
Here the court used in the Code section should be clearly identied to mean the
Grand Jury, or re-written to state that clearly, that if a majority of Grand Jurors vote that an information presented to the Grand Jury is frivolous or malicious, then the Grand Jury alone, no judge, magistrate or clerk, may require a complaining witness to give security for the costs.}
19.2-230. Bill of particulars. A court of record may direct the ling of a bill of particulars at any time before trial. A motion for a bill of particulars shall be made before a plea is entered and at least seven days before the day xed for trial and the bill of particulars shall be led within such time as is xed by the court. (1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section presents various concerns about Justice. First it begins with A court of Record, which is a Circuit Court, yet why is it that an attorney for the Commonwealth should not be required to provide a Bill of Particulars to a Defendant, AND his counsel, if any, at least seven days before the day xed for trial so the Defense can properly prepare its case. In Fairfax County General District Court, the court Discovery form only requires prosecutor to provide evidence 30 MINUTES before the trial in response to a request - that is unacceptable!
Whether or not an accused to know to request a Bill of Particulars, or whether or not any Defense Counsel does what should be an essential part of his Defense preparations, the attorney for the Commonwealth should be REQUIRED by law to le with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and properly serve upon the accused, not just any Defense Counsel, paid or court appointed, any Bill of Particulars.
Potentially, a Bill of Particulars should be required to be provided by the attorney for the Commonwealth to any Grand Jury that is impanelled that hears any aspects of the case.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 39 of 42 19.2-231. Amendment of indictment, presentment or information. If there be any defect in form in any indictment, presentment or information, or if there shall appear to be any variance between the allegations therein and the evidence offered in proof thereof, the court may permit amendment of such indictment, presentment or information, at any time before the jury returns a verdict or the court nds the accused guilty or not guilty, provided the amendment does not change the nature or character of the offense charged. After any such amendment the accused shall be arraigned on the indictment, presentment or information as amended, and shall be allowed to plead anew thereto, if he so desires, and the trial shall proceed as if no amendment had been made; but if the court nds that such amendment operates as a surprise to the accused, he shall be entitled, upon request, to a continuance of the case for a reasonable time. (Code 1950, 19.1-175 through 19.1-177; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section on its face seems very reasonable, for it allows the court to correct scrivener errors or administrative errors. However, this reasonable allowance provides a way for unscrupulous attorneys for the Commonwealth, or their assistants, to negotiate Plea Deals with an accused, to say this charge or that charge will be dropped, or reduced to a lower degree for shorter jail time, if you plead Guilty to this other charge
By this abuse of an allowance, guilty accused Plead Guilty to lesser charges in exchange for Testifying against another accused who is the primary prosecution focus, in truth agreeing to be a False Witness, to commit Perjury, and the attorney who negotiates the Plea Deal is in truth, Suborning Perjury, that may not be a title in Virginia Code, while it is in United States Code, and is a concept included in the Common Law.
A Revolutionary concept would be for any wrongfully convicted or counsel for such convicted, that by Motion to the Grand Jury, under its authority to receive information upon which it may make judgment and vote, that all Plea Deals in a case to be presented to the Grand Jury in its function of 19.2-191. Functions of a grand jury.
(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. Plea Deals that promote False Witness Testimony to gain wrongful convictions are a condition that ...tends to promote criminal activity by a governmental authority...

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 40 of 42 19.2-232. What process to be awarded against accused on indictment, etc. When an indictment or presentment is found or made, or information led, the court, or the judge thereof, shall award process against the accused to answer the same, if he be not in custody. Such process, if the prosecution be for a felony, shall be a capias; if it be for a misdemeanor, for which imprisonment may be imposed, it may be a capias or summons, in the discretion of the court or judge; in all other cases, it shall be, in the rst instance a summons, but if a summons be returned executed and the defendant does not appear, or be returned not found, the court or judge may award a capias. The ofcer serving the summons or capias shall also serve a copy of the indictment, presentment or information therewith. (Code 1950, 19.1-178; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1980, c. 349.)
{NOTE: This Code section describes the decision tree for when an arrest warrant called a capias, or a summons, is issued by the court or judge. It is interesting because of the wording the court or judge because it is an either-or construction, either court, or judge. The question raised is in this Code section who is the court, the Grand Jury? Or the Constitutional Ofcer elected by the Citizens, the Clerk of the Circuit Court? Elsewhere in the Code of Virginia, the Clerk of the Circuit Court is empowered to issue a Capias.}
19.2-233. How awarded, directed, returnable and executed. Sections 8.01-292 and 8.01-295 shall apply to process in criminal, as well as in civil cases; and the court may, in the same case against the same person, award at the same time, or different times, several writs of summons or capias directed to ofcers of different counties or cities. An ofcer having a capias under which the accused is let to bail shall give a certicate of the fact, which shall protect him against any other capias which may have been issued for the same offense. A summons shall be served by delivering a copy thereof to the party in person and the clerk issuing such summons shall deliver or transmit therewith as many copies thereof as there are persons named therein on whom it is to be served. (Code 1950, 19.1-179; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section discusses the aspects of citizens receiving a capias (arrest warrant) or a summons. How it relates to the Grand Jury functions and its related indictments, presentments or reports, and informations, is not directly obvious.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 41 of 42 19.2-234. Procedure when person arrested under capias. An ofcer who, under a capias from any court, arrests a person accused of an offense shall proceed in accordance with 19.2-80 and Article 1 ( 19.2-119 et seq.) of Chapter 9 of Title 19.2 regarding bail. (Code 1950, 19.1-183; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1986, c. 327.)
{NOTE: This Code section refers to other sections, making its meaning obtuse.}
19.2-235. Clerks to mail process to ofcers in other counties, etc. The clerk of every court shall forward, by mail, all process issued for the Commonwealth, directed to the ofcer of any county or city other than his own. (Code 1950, 19.1-181; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section shows that the Clerk has duties to serve the Commonwealth, yet what is his duty in relation to a Citizen of the Commonwealth?}
19.2-236. Where process of arrest may be executed. When process of arrest in a criminal prosecution is issued from a court, either against a party accused or a witness, the ofcer to whom it is directed or delivered may execute it in any part of the Commonwealth. (Code 1950, 19.1-182; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section reveals that a witness in a criminal prosecution can be arrested anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia.}

as of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Chapter 14 Indictments, Presentments, and Informations (Annotated) p. 42 of 42 19.2-237. Process on indictment or presentment for misdemeanor. On any indictment or presentment for a misdemeanor process shall be issued immediately. If the accused appear and plead to the charge, the trial shall proceed without delay, unless good cause for continuance be shown. If, in any misdemeanor case the accused fails to appear and plead, when required the court may either award a capias or proceed to trial in the same manner as if the accused had appeared, plead not guilty and waived trial by jury, provided, that the court shall not in any such case enforce a jail sentence. (Code 1950, 19.1-180, 19.1-184; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1979, c. 468.)
{NOTE: This Code section is disturbing in that if an accused does not receive an indictment, by oversight or non-delivery, intentionally, or accidentally, then the prosecution can proceed in the absence of the accused.}
19.2-238. Summons against corporation; proceedings; expense of publication. A summons against a corporation to answer an indictment, presentment or information may be served as provided in 8.01-299 through 8.01-301; and if the defendant after being so served fail to appear, the court may proceed to trial and judgment, without further process, as if the defendant had appeared, plead not guilty and waived trial by jury. And when, in any such case, publication of a copy of the process is required according to such sections, the expense of such publication may be certied by the court to the Comptroller, and shall be paid out of the state treasury; but the same shall be taxed with other costs and collected from the defendant, if judgment be for the Commonwealth, and be paid into the state treasury by the ofcer collecting the same. (Code 1950, 19.1-186; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)
{NOTE: This Code section is obtuse by reference to other Code sections.}

Grand Jury Va Code CH 13 and 14

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Grand Jury Va Code CH 13 and 14

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

(Code 1950, 19.1-153; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495.)

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

It may make a presentment or nd an indictment upon the information

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

No irregularity in the time or manner of selecting the jurors,

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or ofcial thereof. (2)

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Code of Virginia ~ ~ Chapter 13 Grand Jury (Annotated) &

Você também pode gostar