Ratlines (World War II)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II) 

High-ranking fascists and Nazis who escaped Europe via the ratlines after World War II: Ante Pavelić, Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele

Ratlines (German: Rattenlinien) were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe in the aftermath of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in Latin America, particularly Argentina, though also Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, Ecuador and Bolivia, as well as the United States, Spain and Switzerland.

There were two primary routes: the first went from Germany to Spain, then Argentina; the second from Germany to Rome to Genoa, then South America. The two routes developed independently but eventually came together. The ratlines were supported by some controversial clergy of the Catholic Church, and later used by the United States Intelligence officers.

While reputable scholars unanimously consider Nazi leader Adolf Hitler to have committed suicide in Berlin near the end of the war, various conspiracy theories claim that he survived the war and fled to Argentina.

Early Spanish ratlines

The origins of the first ratlines are connected to various developments in Vatican–Argentine relations before and during World War II. As early as 1942, Monsignor Luigi Maglione contacted Ambassador Llobet, inquiring as to the "willingness of the government of the Argentine Republic to apply its immigration law generously, in order to encourage at the opportune moment European Catholic immigrants to seek the necessary land and capital in our country". Afterwards, a German priest, Anton Weber, the head of the Rome-based Society of Saint Raphael, traveled to Portugal, continuing to Argentina, to lay the groundwork for future Catholic immigration; this was to be a route which fascist exiles would exploit. According to historian Michael Phayer, "this was the innocent origin of what would become the Vatican ratline".

Spain, not Rome, was the "first center of ratline activity that facilitated the escape of Nazi fascists," although the exodus itself was planned within the Vatican. Among the primary organizers were Charles Lescat, a French member of Action Française – an organization suppressed by Pope Pius XI and rehabilitated by Pope Pius XII – and Pierre Daye, a Belgian with contacts in the Spanish government. Lescat and Daye were the first to flee Europe with the help of Argentine cardinal Antonio Caggiano.

By 1946, there were hundreds of war criminals in Spain, and thousands of former Nazis and fascists. According to then–United States Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, Vatican cooperation in turning over these "asylum-seekers" was "negligible". Phayer claims that Pius XII "preferred to see fascist war criminals on board ships sailing to the New World rather than seeing them rotting in POW camps in zonal Germany". Unlike the Vatican emigration operation in Italy that centered on Vatican City, the ratlines of Spain, although "fostered by the Vatican," were relatively independent of the hierarchy of the Vatican Emigration Bureau.

Vatican ratlines

Early efforts: Bishop Hudal

Austrian Catholic bishop Alois Hudal, a Nazi sympathiser, was rector of the Pontificio Istituto Teutonico Santa Maria dell'Anima in Rome, a seminary for Austrian and German priests, and "Spiritual Director of the German People resident in Italy". After the end of the war in Italy, Hudal became active in ministering to German-speaking prisoners of war and internees then held in camps throughout Italy. In December 1944, the Vatican Secretariat of State received permission to appoint a representative to "visit the German-speaking civil internees in Italy", a job assigned to Hudal.

Hudal used this position to aid the escape of wanted Nazi war criminals, including Franz Stangl, commanding officer of Treblinka; Gustav Wagner, commanding officer of Sobibor; Alois Brunner, responsible for the Drancy internment camp near Paris and in charge of deportations in Slovakia to German concentration camps; Erich Priebke, who was responsible for the Ardeatine Massacre; and Adolf Eichmann—a fact about which he was later unashamedly open. Some of these wanted men were being held in internment camps: generally without identity papers, they would be enrolled in camp registers under false names. Other Nazis hid in Italy and sought Hudal out as his role in assisting escapes became known on the Nazi grapevine.

In his memoirs, Hudal said of his actions, "I thank God that He [allowed me] to visit and comfort many victims in their prisons and concentration camps and to help them escape with false identity papers." He explained that in his eyes:

The Allies' War against Germany was not a crusade, but the rivalry of economic complexes for whose victory they had been fighting. This so-called business ... used catchwords like democracy, race, religious liberty and Christianity as a bait for the masses. All these experiences were the reason why I felt duty bound after 1945 to devote my whole charitable work mainly to former National Socialists and Fascists, especially to so-called 'war criminals'.

According to Mark Aarons and John Loftus in their book Unholy Trinity, Hudal was the first Catholic priest to dedicate himself to establishing escape routes. Aarons and Loftus claim that Hudal provided the objects of his charity with money to help them escape and, more importantly, provided them with false papers, including identity documents issued by the Vatican Refugee Organisation (Pontificia Commissione di Assistenza). These Vatican papers were not full passports and thus were not enough to gain passage overseas. They were, rather, the first stop in a paper trail—they could be used to obtain a displaced person passport from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which in turn could be used to apply for visas. In theory, the ICRC would perform background checks on passport applicants, but in practice, the word of a priest or particularly a bishop would be good enough. According to statements collected by Austrian writer Gitta Sereny from a senior official of the Rome branch of the ICRC, Hudal could also use his position as a bishop to request papers from the ICRC "made out according to his specifications". Sereny's sources also revealed an active illicit trade in stolen and forged ICRC papers in Rome at the time.

According to declassified U.S. intelligence reports, Hudal was not the only priest helping Nazi escapees at this time. In the "La Vista Report" declassified in 1984, Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) operative Vincent La Vista told how he had easily arranged for two bogus Hungarian refugees to get false ICRC documents with the help of a letter from a Father Joseph Gallov. Gallov, who ran a Vatican-sponsored charity for Hungarian refugees, asked no questions and wrote a letter to his "personal contact in the International Red Cross, who then issued the passports".

San Girolamo ratline

According to Aarons and Loftus, Hudal's private operation was small scale compared to what came later. The major Roman ratline was operated by a small, but influential network of Croatian priests, members of the Franciscan order, led by Father Krunoslav Draganović, who organised a highly sophisticated chain with headquarters at the San Girolamo degli Illirici Seminary College in Rome, but with links from Austria to the final embarcation point at the port of Genoa. The ratline initially focused on aiding members of the Croatian Ustaše including its leader (or Poglavnik), Ante Pavelić.

Priests active in the chain included: Fr. Vilim Cecelja, former Deputy Military Vicar to the Ustaše, based in Austria where many Ustashe and Nazi refugees remained in hiding; Fr. Dragutin Kamber, based at San Girolamo; Fr. Dominik Mandić, an official Vatican representative at San Girolamo and also "General Economist" or treasurer of the Franciscan order, who used this position to put the Franciscan press at the ratline's disposal; and Monsignor Karlo Petranović, based in Genoa. Vilim would make contact with those hiding in Austria and help them across the border to Italy; Kamber, Mandić and Draganović would find them lodgings, often in the monastery itself, while they arranged documentation; finally Draganović would phone Petranović in Genoa with the number of required berths on ships leaving for South America (see below).

The operation of the Draganović ratline was an open secret among the intelligence and diplomatic communities in Rome. As early as August 1945, Allied commanders in Rome were asking questions about the use of San Girolamo as a "haven" for Ustaše.

A year later, a US State Department report of 12 July 1946 lists nine war criminals, including Albanians and Montenegrins as well as Croats, plus others "not actually sheltered in the Collegium Illiricum [i.e., San Girolamo degli Illirici] but who otherwise enjoy Church support and protection."

In February 1947, CIC Special Agent Robert Clayton Mudd reported ten members of Pavelić's Ustaša cabinet living either in San Girolamo or in the Vatican itself. Mudd had infiltrated an agent into the monastery and confirmed that it was "honeycombed with cells of Ustashe operatives" guarded by "armed youths". Mudd reported:

It was further established that these Croats travel back and forth from the Vatican several times a week in a car with a chauffeur whose license plate bears the two initials CD, "Corpo Diplomatico". It issues forth from the Vatican and discharges its passengers inside the Monastery of San Geronimo. Subject to diplomatic immunity it is impossible to stop the car and discover who are its passengers.

Mudd's conclusion was the following:

DRAGANOVIC's sponsorship of these Croat Ustashes definitely links him up with the plan of the Vatican to shield these ex-Ustasha nationalists until such time as they are able to procure for them the proper documents to enable them to go to South America. The Vatican, undoubtedly banking on the strong anti-Communist feelings of these men, is endeavoring to infiltrate them into South America in any way possible to counteract the spread of Red doctrine. It has been reliably reported, for example that Dr. VRANCIC has already gone to South America and that Ante PAVELIC and General KREN are scheduled for an early departure to South America through Spain. All these operations are said to have been negotiated by DRAGANOVIC because of his influence in the Vatican.

The existence of Draganović's ratline has been supported by a highly respected historian of Vatican diplomacy, Fr. Robert Graham: "I've no doubt that Draganović was extremely active in syphoning off his Croatian Ustashe friends." Graham claimed that Draganović, in running his 'ratline,' was not acting on behalf of the Vatican: "Just because he's a priest doesn't mean he represents the Vatican. It was his own operation." At the same time, there were four occasions in which the Vatican did intervene on behalf of interned Ustasha prisoners. The Secretariat of State asked the UK and US governments to release Croatian POWs from British internment camps in Italy.

U.S. intelligence involvement

If at first U.S. intelligence officers had been mere observers of the Draganović ratline, this changed in the summer of 1947. A now declassified U.S. Army intelligence report from 1950 sets out in detail the history of the people-smuggling operation in the three years to follow.

According to the report, from this point on U.S. forces themselves had begun to use Draganović's established network to evacuate its own "visitors". As the report put it, these were "visitors who had been in the custody of the 430th CIC and completely processed in accordance with current directives and requirements, and whose continued residence in Austria constituted a security threat as well as a source of possible embarrassment to the Commanding General of USFA, since the Soviet Command had become aware that their presence in U.S. Zone of Austria and in some instances had requested the return of these persons to Soviet custody".

These were suspected war criminals from areas occupied by the Red Army which the U.S. was obliged to hand over for trial to the Soviets. The U.S. reputedly was reluctant to do so, partly due to a belief that fair trials could hardly be expected in the USSR (see Operation Keelhaul), and at the same time, their desire to make use of Nazi scientists and other resources.

The deal with Draganović involved getting the visitors to Rome: "Dragonovich [sic] handled all phases of the operation after the defectees arrived in Rome, such as the procurement of IRO Italian and South American documents, visas, stamps, arrangements for disposition, land or sea, and notification of resettlement committees in foreign lands".

United States intelligence used these methods in order to get important Nazi scientists and military strategists, to the extent they had not already been claimed by the Soviet Union, to their own centres of military science in the US. Many Nazi scientists were employed by the U.S., retrieved in Operation Paperclip.

Argentine connection

See also: Juan Perón § Jewish and German communities of Argentina

In Nuremberg at that time something was taking place that I personally considered a disgrace and an unfortunate lesson for the future of humanity. I became certain that the Argentine people also considered the Nuremberg process a disgrace, unworthy of the victors, who behaved as if they hadn't been victorious. Now we realize that they [the Allies] deserved to lose the war.
—Argentine president Juan Perón on the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals

The final period of German immigration to Argentina occurred between 1946 and 1950 when President Juan Perón ordered the creation of a ratline for prominent Nazis, collaborators and other fascists from Europe. During this period, Argentine diplomats and intelligence officers, on Perón's instructions, vigorously encouraged these groups to make their home in Argentina.

In his 2002 book, The Real Odessa, Argentine researcher Uki Goñi used new access to the country's archives to show that Argentine diplomats and intelligence officers had, on Perón's instructions, vigorously encouraged Nazi and fascist war criminals to make their home in Argentina. According to Goñi, the Argentines not only collaborated with Draganović's ratline, they set up further ratlines of their own running through Scandinavia, Switzerland and Belgium.

According to Goñi, Argentina's first move into Nazi smuggling was in January 1946, when Argentine bishop Antonio Caggiano, leader of the Argentine chapter of Catholic Action flew with another bishop, Agustín Barrére, to Rome where Caggiano was due to be anointed Cardinal. In Rome the Argentine bishops met with French Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, where they passed on a message (recorded in Argentina's diplomatic archives) that "the Government of the Argentine Republic was willing to receive French persons, whose political attitude during the recent war would expose them, should they return to France, to harsh measures and private revenge".

Over the spring of 1946, a number of French war criminals, fascists and Vichy officials made it from Italy to Argentina in the same way: they were issued passports by the Rome ICRC office; these were then stamped with Argentine tourist visas (the need for health certificates and return tickets was waived on Caggiano's recommendation). The first documented case of a French war criminal arriving in Buenos Aires was Émile Dewoitine, who was later sentenced in absentia to 20 years of hard labour. He sailed first class on the same ship back with Cardinal Caggiano.

Shortly after this Argentinian Nazi smuggling became institutionalised, according to Goñi, when Perón's new government of February 1946 appointed anthropologist Santiago Peralta as Immigration Commissioner and former Ribbentrop agent Ludwig Freude as his intelligence chief. Goñi argues that these two then set up a "rescue team" of secret service agents and immigration "advisors", many of whom were themselves European war-criminals, with Argentine citizenship and employment.

The U.S. Secret Service imagines a disguise Hitler might use to try to evade capture (1944).

In 2014, over 700 FBI documents were declassified (as part of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act) revealing that the US government had undertaken an investigation in the late 1940s and 1950s as to the reports of the possible escape of Adolf Hitler from Germany. Some leads purported that he had not committed suicide in Berlin but had fled Germany in 1945, and eventually arrived in Argentina via Spain. Within the pages of these documents are statements, naming people and places involved in Hitler's alleged journey from Germany to South America including mention of the ratlines that were already in existence. Additional CIA documents contain reported sightings and a photograph of a man alleged to be Hitler in 1954. The claim related to the photograph made by a self-proclaimed former German SS trooper named Phillip Citroen that Hitler was still alive, and that he "left Colombia for Argentina around January 1955." The CIA report states that neither the contact who reported his conversations with Citroen, nor the CIA station was "in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information". The station chief's superiors told him that "enormous efforts could be expended on this matter with remote possibilities of establishing anything concrete", and the investigation was dropped.

Finnish ratlines

Main article: Pro-German resistance movement in Finland

From 1944, there existed a network of extreme right-wing Finns and Nazis in Finland, founded by Sturmbannführer (Major) Alarich Bross. The original plan was for the network to engage in an armed struggle against the expected Soviet occupation. When that did not materialize, the most significant form of action the organisation undertook was to smuggle out those who wanted to leave the country to Germany and Sweden for various reasons. For this purpose, a safehouse network was built in Finland and the cover company "Great fishing cooperative" was established. In Finland, safehouse routes were provided by a 50-70-man maritime transport organization. In Sweden, the target was the small town of Härnösand in western Norrland. From Finland, the ships were driven to secret loading bays around the city, where the men of the organization were ready. Some of the smuggled men were delivered to Sweden from the north over the Tornio river. Access to Europe was opened through the Swedish safehouse network.

Through the safehouse routes, the resistance movement transported Finnish nazis and fascists, officers and intelligence personnel, Estonian and East Karelian refugees and German citizens out of the country. Hundreds of people were assisted in Sweden, including more than a hundred German prisoners of war who had fled the Finns. Transport to Germany took place after the September 1944 break in German submarines, smuggling hundreds of people. At the same time Organisation ODESSA brought refugees from Germany to the Finnish coast, sometimes in several submarines at the same time. They were transported along the safe house route to Sweden and further from there.

ODESSA and the Gehlen Organization

Main article: ODESSA

The existence of Italian and Argentine ratlines has only been confirmed relatively recently, mainly due to research in newly declassified archives. Until the work of Aarons and Loftus, and of Uki Goñi (2002), a common view was that ex-Nazis themselves, organised in secret networks, ran the escape routes alone. The most famous such network is ODESSA (Organisation of former SS members), founded in 1946 according to Simon Wiesenthal, which included SS-Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny and Sturmbannführer Alfred Naujocks and, in Argentina, Rodolfo Freude. Alois Brunner, former commandant of Drancy internment camp near Paris, escaped to Rome, then Syria, by ODESSA. Brunner was thought to be the highest-ranking Nazi war criminal still alive as of 2007.

Persons claiming to represent ODESSA claimed responsibility for the unsuccessful July 9, 1979, car bombing in France aimed at Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld. According to Paul Manning, "eventually, over 10,000 former German military made it to South America along escape routes ODESSA and Deutsche Hilfsverein..."

Simon Wiesenthal, who advised Frederick Forsyth on the early 1970s novel/film script The Odessa File which brought the name to public attention, also names other Nazi escape organisations such as Spinne ("Spider") and Sechsgestirn ("Constellation of Six"). Wiesenthal describes these immediately after the war as Nazi cells based in areas of Austria where many Nazis had retreated and gone to ground. Wiesenthal claimed that the ODESSA network shepherded escapees to the Catholic ratlines in Rome (although he mentions only Hudal, not Draganović); or through a second route through France and into Francoist Spain.

ODESSA was supported by the Gehlen Organization, which employed many former Nazi party members, and was headed by Reinhard Gehlen, a former German Army intelligence officer employed post-war by the CIA. The Gehlen Organization became the nucleus of the BND German intelligence agency, directed by Reinhard Gehlen from its 1956 creation until 1968.

Ratline escapees

Some of the Nazis and war criminals who escaped using ratlines include:

• Andrija Artuković, escaped to the United States; arrested in 1984 after decades of delay and extradited to Yugoslavia, where he died in 1988 from natural causes
• Klaus Barbie, fled to Bolivia in 1951 with help from the United States, as he had been an agent of the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps since April 1947; captured in 1983; died in prison in France on September 23, 1991
• Alois Brunner, fled to Syria in 1954; died around 2001
• Herberts Cukurs, fled to Brazil in 1945, assassinated by Mossad in Uruguay in 1965.
• Léon Degrelle, fled to Spain in 1945; founded the neo-Nazi organization CEDADE in 1966 while under protection by the Franco regime; died in Spain in 1994.
• Adolf Eichmann, fled to Argentina in 1950; captured 1960; executed in Israel on 1 June 1962
• Aribert Heim, disappeared in 1962; most likely died in Egypt in 1992
• Aarne Kauhanen, fled to Venezuela in 1945; arrested 1947; died in mysterious circumstances in 1949
• Sándor Képíró, fled to Argentina, returned to Hungary in 1996. He stood trial for war crimes in Budapest in February 2011, before his death in September.
• Josef Mengele, fled to Argentina in 1949, then to other countries; died in Brazil in 1979
• Ante Pavelić, escaped to Argentina in 1948; died in Spain, in December 1959, of wounds sustained two years earlier in an assassination attempt
• Erich Priebke, fled to Argentina in 1949; arrested 1994; died in 2013
• Walter Rauff, escaped to Chile; never captured; died in 1984
• Eduard Roschmann, escaped to Argentina in 1948; fled to Paraguay to avoid extradition and died there in 1977
• Hans-Ulrich Rudel, fled to Argentina in 1948; started the "Kameradenwerk", a relief organization for Nazi criminals that helped fugitives escape
• Dinko Šakić, fled to Argentina in 1947, arrested in 1998 and extradited to Croatia. He was tried and found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, serving a 20 year sentence. He died in 2008.
• Boris Smyslovsky, fled to Argentina in 1948 from Liechtenstein with the First Russian National Army. He returned to Liechtenstein in 1966, and died of natural causes in 1988.
• Franz Stangl, fled to Brazil in 1951; arrested in 1967 and extradited to West Germany; died in 1971 of heart failure
• Gustav Wagner, fled to Brazil in 1950; arrested 1978; committed suicide 1980

In popular culture

Novels

• Frederick Forsyth's 1972 thriller The Odessa File follows the attempts of a German reporter to track down Eduard Roschmann in Argentina.
• Playing on a similar South America theme, the 1974 conspiracy thriller novel Marathon Man centers around a Paraguay-based Auschwitz dentist's international diamond laundering scheme in New York City.
• 1976 classic novel The Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin describes a plot to clone Adolf Hitler.
• In Philip Kerr's novel A Quiet Flame, detective Bernie Gunther investigates SS officers in Argentina.

Film and television

• Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) briefly references Martin Bormann's alleged escape to South America.
• Franklin J. Schaffner's 1978 science-fiction feature The Boys from Brazil adaptation of Levin's novel, nominated for three Academy Awards.
• River of Death (1981)
• In the season 7 episode of Seinfeld, "The Soup Nazi," the titular character flees to Argentina after Elaine publicizes the recipes to his sought-after soup.
• In episode two of season four of The Office (2007) salesman Dwight Schrute refers to his Nazi grandfather Mannheim as "still puttering around down in Argentina," with his travel visa to visit having been protested by the Shoah Foundation.
• The 2013 Argentine historical drama The German Doctor by Lucía Puenzo portrays Josef Mengele's attempted medical experiments on an Argentinian family in the 1960s.
• The 2015 film The People vs. Fritz Bauer is a political drama about the struggle of Frankfurt Attorney General Fritz Bauer to track down Adolf Eichmann.
• The 2018 film Operation Finale is a drama about the 1960 capture of Adolf Eichmann.

Legal immunity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_immunity

Legal immunity, or immunity from prosecution, is a legal status wherein an individual or entity cannot be held liable for a violation of the law, in order to facilitate societal aims that outweigh the value of imposing liability in such cases. Such legal immunity may be from criminal prosecution, or from civil liability (being subject of lawsuit), or both. The most notable forms of legal immunity are parliamentary immunity and witness immunity. One author has described legal immunity as "the obverse of a legal power":

A party has an immunity with respect to some action, object or status, if some other relevant party – in this context, another state or international agency, or citizen or group of citizens – has no (power) right to alter the party's legal standing in point of rights or duties in the specified respect. There is a wide range of legal immunities that may be invoked in the name of the right to rule. In international law, immunities may be created when states assert powers of derogation, as is permitted, for example, from the European Convention on Human Rights "in times of war or other public emergency." Equally familiar examples include the immunities against prosecution granted to representatives (MPs or councillors) and government officials in pursuit of their duties. Such legal immunities may be suspect as potential violations of the rule of law, or regarded as quite proper, as necessary protections for the officers of the state in the rightful pursuit of their duties.

Criticism

Legal immunities may be subject to criticism because they institute a separate standard of conduct for those who receive them. For example, as one author notes:

In the United Kingdom, some exercises of the royal prerogative, which seems to give the government of the day opportunities for massive and unaccountable discretion, rightly come under suspicion, whereas the immunity from libel proceedings of Members of Parliament speaking in the House, or of persons giving evidence in a court of law, is generally regarded as an acceptable protection against powerful (and wealthy) interests who would otherwise constrain public debate or the administration of justice.

Types

Immunity of government leaders

Many forms of immunity are granted to government leaders to rule over the world, continent, nation, province, urban area and rural area without fear of being sued or charged with a crime for so doing:

• Sovereign immunity, the prevention of lawsuits or prosecution against rulers or governments without their given consent
• Sovereign immunity in the United States bars suit against federal, state, and tribal governments, which cannot be sued without their consent. Governmental consent to be sued is expressed through legislation as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity
• Parliamentary immunity, immunity granted to government leaders during their tenure and in the course of their duties
• Speech or Debate Clause, a provision in the United States Constitution that provides immunity to members of Congress for statements made in either house
• Immunity from prosecution (international law), exclusion of elected officials from prosecution under international law
• State immunity, principle of international law that the government of a state is not amenable before the courts of another state

Immunity of government officials

• Judicial immunity, the absolute immunity of a judiciary in the course of their official duties
• Qualified immunity, in the United States, sovereign immunity of all government officials and government employees performing tasks as part of the government's actions
• Absolute immunity, a type of sovereign immunity for all government officials and government employees that confers total immunity when acting in the course of their duties
• Diplomatic immunity, agreement between sovereign governments to exclude diplomats from local laws because grants of immunity are particularly important in intergovernmental relations, where traditions have arisen to prevent the federal civil servants of a country's foreign service cadre from being harassed by their host countries.

Such immunities may be granted by law (statutory or constitutional) or by treaty.

Immunity of resident citizens of a country participating in the legal process

• Amnesty law, a law that provides immunity for past crimes
• Spousal privilege, also called spousal immunity, protects a spouse from testifying against the defendant
• Witness immunity, immunity granted to a witness in exchange for testimony

Immunity of private officials

• Reporter's privilege, a limited First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have by which journalists may not be prosecuted for protecting their confidential sources from discovery

Immunity of nonprofit organizations

• Charitable immunity, immunity from liability granted to charities in many countries from the 19th century to the mid-20th century

Such immunities may be granted by law or, for witness immunity, by prosecutors or other authorities on a case-by-case basis, commonly as an agreement with the witnesses.

Grand jury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A grand jury is a jury—a group of citizens—empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may subpoena physical evidence or a person to testify. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.

Originating in England during the Middle Ages, grand juries are only retained in two countries, the United States and Liberia. Other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most others now employ a different procedure that does not involve a jury: a preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. The investigatory functions of grand juries include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence, and hearing sworn testimonies of witnesses who appear before it; the accusatory function determines whether there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a particular offense within the venue of a district court.

In Ireland, for a period, they also functioned as local government authorities: "They fixed the salaries of public officers; they regulated prisons and houses of correction; they levied funds for the support of hospitals; they made and repaired roads and bridges, and they framed accounts of the expenses incurred in these matters... They determined what public works should be undertaken — what price should be paid for them, and who were the individuals that should undertake them, and be responsible for their completion. They settled the amount of the local taxation of the county, and, under their direction, it was levied from the actual occupiers of the land.". In Japan, the Law of July 12, 1948, created the Kensatsu Shinsakai (Prosecutorial Review Commission or PRC system), inspired by the American system.

The grand jury (from the French word grand meaning "large") is so named because traditionally it has more jurors than a trial jury, sometimes called a petit jury (from the French word petit meaning "small"). A grand jury in the United States is usually composed of 16 to 23 citizens, though in Virginia it has fewer members for regular or special grand juries.

Purpose

The function of a grand jury is to accuse persons who may be guilty of a crime, but the institution is also a shield against unfounded and oppressive prosecution. It is a means for lay citizens, representative of the community, to participate in the administration of justice. It can also make presentments on crime and maladministration in its area. Traditionally, a grand jury consists of 23 members.

The mode of accusation is by a written statement of two types:

1. in solemn form (indictment) describing the offense with proper accompaniments of time and circumstances, and certainty of act and person, or
2. by a less formal mode, which is usually the spontaneous act of the grand jury, called presentment.

No indictment or presentment can be made except by concurrence of at least twelve of the jurors. The grand jury may accuse upon their own knowledge, but it is generally done upon the testimony of witnesses under oath and other evidence heard before them. Grand jury proceedings are, in the first instance, at the instigation of the government or other prosecutors, and ex parte and in secret deliberation. The accused has no knowledge nor right to interfere with their proceedings.

If they find the accusation true, which is usually drawn up in form by the prosecutor or an officer of the court, they write upon the indictment the words "a true bill" which is signed by the foreperson of the grand jury and presented to the court publicly in the presence of all the jurors. If the indictment is not proven to the satisfaction of the grand jury, the word ignoramus or "not a true bill" is written upon it by the grand jury, or by their foreman and then said to be ignored, and the accusation is dismissed as unfounded. (The potential defendant is said to have been "no-billed" by the grand jury.) If the grand jury returns an indictment as a true bill ("billa vera"), the indictment is said to be founded and the party to stand indicted and required to be put on trial.

Origins

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, an Act of Henry II of England. Henry's chief impact on the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace". To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire, a body of important men were sworn (juré) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the more recent grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility.

The grand jury can be said to have "celebrated" its 800th birthday in 2015, because a precursor to the grand jury is defined in Article 61, the longest of the 63 articles of Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin: "the Great Charter of Liberties") executed on 15 June 1215 by King John and by the Barons. The document was primarily composed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton (1150–1228). He and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed schemas for the division of the Bible into chapters and it is the system of Archbishop Langton which prevailed. He was a Bible scholar, and the concept of the grand jury may possibly derive from Deuteronomy 25:1: "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." (King James Version) Thus the grand jury has been described as the "Shield and the Sword" of the People: as a "Shield for the People" from abusive indictments of the government – or malicious indictments of individuals – and as the "Sword of the People" to cut away crime by any private individual; or to cut away crime by any public servant, whether in the judicial, executive, or legislative branches.

Notable cases

On 2 July 1681, a popular statesman, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury was arrested on suspicion of high treason and committed to the Tower of London. He immediately petitioned the Old Bailey on a writ of habeas corpus, but the Old Bailey said it did not have jurisdiction over prisoners in the Tower of London, so Cooper had to wait for the next session of the Court of King's Bench. Cooper moved for a writ of habeas corpus on 24 October 1681, and his case finally came before a grand jury on 24 November 1681.

The government's case against Cooper was particularly weak – the government admitted that most of the witnesses brought against Cooper had already perjured themselves, and the documentary evidence was inconclusive, and the jury was handpicked by the Whig Sheriff of London. For these reasons the government had little chance of securing a conviction, and on 13 February 1682, the case was dropped when the grand jury issued an ignoramus bill (a finding of deficient evidence), rather than comply with the king's intent of a true bill (a grand jury indictment).

The grand jury's theoretical function against abuse of executive power was seen during the Watergate scandal. In United States v. Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled eight-to-zero on 23 July 1974 (Justice William Rehnquist who had been appointed by Nixon recused himself from the case) that executive privilege applied only to the legislative and judicial branches – and not to grand jury subpoenas – thus implying a grand jury constituted protections equivalent to a "fourth branch of government". The second Watergate grand jury indicted seven lawyers in the White House, including former Attorney General John Mitchell, and named President Nixon as a "secret, un-indicted, co-conspirator". Despite evading impeachment by resigning from office, Nixon was still required to testify before a grand jury.

Similarly, in 1998, President Clinton became the first sitting president required to testify before a grand jury as the subject of an investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel. The testimony came after a four-year investigation into Clinton and his wife Hillary's alleged involvement in several scandals including Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm. Revelations from the investigation sparked a battle in Congress over whether or not to impeach Clinton.

By jurisdiction

England and Wales

The sheriff of every county was required to return to every quarter sessions and assizes (or more precisely the commission of oyer and terminer and of gaol delivery), 24 men of the county "to inquire into, present, do and execute all those things which, on the part of our Lord the King (or our Lady the Queen), shall then be commanded them". Grand jurors at the assizes or at the borough quarter sessions did not have property qualifications; but, at the county quarter sessions, they had the same property qualification as petty jurors. However, at the assizes, the grand jury generally consisted of gentlemen of high standing in the county.

After the court was opened by the crier making proclamation, the names of those summoned to the grand jury were called and they were sworn. They numbered at least 14 and not more than 23. The person presiding (the judge at the assizes, the chairman at the county sessions, the recorder at the borough sessions) gave the charge to the grand jury, i.e. he directed their attention to points in the various cases about to be considered which required explanation.

The charge having been delivered, the grand jury withdrew to their own room, having received the bills of indictment. The witnesses whose names were endorsed on each bill were sworn as they came to be examined, in the grand jury room, the oath being administered by the foreman, who wrote his initials against the name of the witness on the back of the bill. Only the witnesses for the prosecution were examined, as the function of the grand jury was merely to inquire whether there was sufficient ground to put the accused on trial. If the majority of them (and at least 12) thought that the evidence so adduced made out a sufficient case, the words "a true bill" were endorsed on the back of the bill. If they were of the opposite opinion, the phrase "not a true bill", or the single Latin word ignoramus ("we do not know" or "we are ignorant (of)"), was endorsed instead and the bill was said to be "ignored" or thrown out. They could find a true bill as to the charge in one count, and ignore that in another; or as to one defendant and not as to another; but they could not, like a petty jury, return a special or conditional finding, or select part of a count as true and reject the other part. When some bills were "found", some of the jurors came out and handed the bills to the clerk of arraigns (in assizes) or clerk of the peace, who announced to the court the name of the prisoner, the charge, and the endorsements of the grand jury. They then retired and considered other bills until all were disposed of; after which they were discharged by the judge, chairman, or recorder.

If a bill was thrown out, although it could not again be referred to the grand jury during the same assizes or sessions, it could be preferred at subsequent assizes or sessions, but not in respect of the same offense if a petty jury had returned a verdict.

Ordinarily, bills of indictment were preferred after there had been an examination before the magistrates. But this need not always take place. With certain exceptions, any person would prefer a bill of indictment against another before the grand jury without any previous inquiry into the truth of the accusation before a magistrate. This right was at one time universal and was often abused. A substantial check was put on this abuse by the Vexatious Indictments Act 1859. This Act provided that for certain offences which it listed (perjury, libel, etc.), the person presenting such an indictment must be bound by recognizance to prosecute or give evidence against the accused, or alternatively had judicial permission (as specified) so to do.

If an indictment was found in the absence of the accused, and he/she was not in custody and had not been bound over to appear at assizes or sessions, then process was issued to bring that person into court, as it is contrary to the English law to "try" an indictment in the absence of the accused.

The grand jury's functions were gradually made redundant by the development of committal proceedings in magistrates' courts from 1848 onward when the (three) Jervis Acts, such as the Justices Protection Act 1848, codified and greatly expanded the functions of magistrates in pre-trial proceedings; these proceedings developed into almost a repeat of the trial itself. In 1933 the grand jury ceased to function in England, under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and was entirely abolished in 1948, when a clause from 1933 saving grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1948.

Scotland

The grand jury was introduced in Scotland, solely for high treason, a year after the union with England, by the Treason Act 1708, an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. Section III of the Act required the Scottish courts to try cases of treason and misprision of treason according to English rules of procedure and evidence. This rule was repealed in 1945.

The first Scottish grand jury under this Act met at Edinburgh on 10 October 1748 to take cognisance of the charges against such rebels as had not surrendered, following the Jacobite rising of 1745.

An account of its first use in Scotland illustrates the institution's characteristics. It consisted of 23 good and lawful men, chosen out of 48 who were summoned: 24 from the county of Edinburgh (Midlothian), 12 from Haddington (East Lothian) and 12 from Linlithgow (West Lothian). The court consisted of three judges from the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland's highest criminal court), of whom Tinwald (Justice Clerk) was elected preses (presiding member). Subpoenas under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk were executed on a great number of persons in different shires, requiring them to appear as witnesses under the penalty of £100 each. The preses named Sir John Inglis of Cramond as Foreman of the Grand Jury, who was sworn first in the English manner by kissing the book; the others followed three at a time; after which Lord Tinwald, addressing the jurors, informed them that the power His Majesty's advocate possessed before the union, of prosecuting any person for high treason, who appeared guilty on a precognition taken of the facts, being now done away, power was lodged with them, a grand jury, 12 of whom behoved to concur before a true bill could be found. An indictment was then preferred in court and the witnesses endorsed on it were called over and sworn; on which the jury retired to the exchequer chambers and the witnesses were conducted to a room near it, whence they were called to be examined separately. Two solicitors for the crown were present at the examination but no one else; and after they had finished and the sense of the jury was collected, the indictment was returned a "true bill", if the charges were found proved, or "ignoramus" if doubtful. The proceedings continued for a week, in which time, out of 55 bills, 42 were sustained and 13 dismissed.

Further Acts of Parliament in the 19th century regarding treason did not specify this special procedure and the Grand Jury was used no longer.

Ireland

In Ireland, grand juries were active from the Middle Ages during the Lordship of Ireland in parts of the island under the control of the English government (The Pale), that was followed by the Kingdom of Ireland. They mainly functioned as local government authorities at the county level. The system was so-called as the grand jurors had to present their public works proposals and budgets in court for official sanction by a judge. Grand jurors were usually the largest local payers of rates, and therefore tended to be the larger landlords, and on retiring they selected new members from the same background.

Distinct from their public works function, as property owners they also were qualified to sit on criminal juries hearing trials by jury, as well as having a pre-trial judicial function for serious criminal cases. Many of them also sat as magistrates judging the less serious cases.

They were usually wealthy "country gentlemen" (i.e. landowners, landed gentry, farmers and merchants):

A country gentleman as a member of a Grand Jury...levied the local taxes, appointed the nephews of his old friends to collect them, and spent them when they were gathered in. He controlled the boards of guardians and appointed the dispensary doctors, regulated the diet of paupers, inflicted fines and administered the law at petty sessions.

From 1691 to 1793, Dissenters and Roman Catholics were excluded from membership. The concentration of power and wealth in a few families caused resentment over time. The whole local government system started to become more representative from the passing of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840. The growing divergence of opinions can be seen in the House of Commons debate on 8 March 1861 led by Isaac Butt. Grand juries were eventually replaced by democratically elected County Councils by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, as regards their administrative functions.

After the formation of Irish Free State in 1922, grand juries were not required, but they persisted in Northern Ireland until abolished by the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1969.

United States

Main article: Grand juries in the United States

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

A grand jury investigating the Arcadia Hotel fire in Boston, Massachusetts in 1913

In the early decades of the United States, grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least 12 of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a 23-person grand jury, 12 people would constitute a bare majority). Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations.

In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found that there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise essentially the same authority as a state attorney general has, that is, a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case.

The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.

While all states currently have provisions for grand juries, today approximately half of the states employ them and 22 require their use, to varying extents. The constitution of Pennsylvania required, between 1874 and 1968, that a grand jury indict all felonies. Six states (Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, and Kansas) allow citizens to circulate a petition in order to impanel a grand jury.

An American federal grand jury has from 16 to 23 jurors, with twelve votes required to return an indictment. All grand jury proceedings are conducted behind closed doors, without a presiding judge. The prosecutors are tasked with arranging for the appearance of witnesses, as well as drafting the order in which they are called, and take part in the questioning of witnesses. The targets of the grand jury or their lawyers have no right to appear before a grand jury unless they are invited, nor do they have a right to present exculpatory evidence. Possibly as a result, there is a running joke in the legal profession that a grand jury could "indict a ham sandwich" if the prosecutor asked. Some sources state the joke originated from a quote by Sol Wachtler in 1985, but it is found in a newspaper article from 1979, attributed to an unnamed "Rochester defense lawyer".

Canada

Grand juries were once common across Canada. The institution of British civil government in 1749 at Nova Scotia brought the judicature system peculiar to that form, and the grand jury was inherent to it. A similar form derived in Quebec from the promise of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that a faithful copy of Laws of England would be instituted in the North American possessions of the Crown. Archival records are found that document the presentments of a grand jury in Quebec as early as 16 October 1764. One of the chief complaints was related to the jury trial, and the use of language. The desire for English law was a driver for the division in 1791 of Quebec, as it was then known, at the Ottawa river into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as each of the two groups (French and English) desired to maintain their traditions. In point of fact, the second law passed in Upper Canada relates to (petit) jury trial. This was continued so that Chapter 31 of the 1859 Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada specifies the constitution of Grand and Petit Juries in the province (now known as Ontario). The colony at St. John's Island, ceded by France in 1763, and separated on 30 May 1769 from Nova Scotia, became Prince Edward Island on 29 November 1798. Prince Edward Island derived its grand jury from its administrative parent between 1763 and 1769, Nova Scotia, as did Sunbury County when it was split off in 1784 to become the Colony of New Brunswick. The Colony of British Columbia, when it was formed on 2 August 1858, instituted a grand jury, along with the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands (1853–1863) and the Colony of Vancouver Island (1848–1866) when the latter were absorbed by the former.

Old courthouses with the two jury boxes necessary to accommodate the 24 jurors of a grand jury can still be seen. The grand jury would evaluate charges and return what was called a "true bill (of indictment)" if the charges were to proceed. or a verdict of nolle prosequi if not. The practice gradually disappeared in Canada over the course of the twentieth century, after being the subject of extended discussions late in the 19th. It was ultimately abolished in 1984 when the Nova Scotia courts formally ended the practice. Prince Edward Island maintained a grand jury as recently as 1871.

Australia

The grand jury existed in New South Wales for a short period in the 1820s. The New South Wales Act 1823 (UK) enabled the establishment of quarter sessions, as a subsidiary court structure below that of the Supreme Court. Francis Forbes, Chief Justice, reasoned that this entailed the creation of quarter sessions as they existed in England. Thus, inadvertently, trial by jury and indictment by grand jury were introduced, but only for these subsidiary courts. Grand juries met in Sydney, Parramatta, Windsor and other places. This democratic method of trial proved very popular, but was resented by conservatives. Eventually, conservative elements in the colony were successful in having these innovations suppressed by the Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK). George Forbes, a member of the Legislative Council, unsuccessfully moved for the reintroduction of grand juries in 1858, but this was thwarted by the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice.

In South Australia and Western Australia, grand juries existed for longer periods of time. In South Australia, the first grand jury sat on 13 May 1837, but they were abolished in 1852. In Western Australia, by the Grand Jury Abolition Act Amendment Act 1883 (WA), grand juries were abolished (section 4: A Grand Jury shall not be summoned for the Supreme Court of Western Australia, nor for any General Quarter Sessions for the said Colony). This 1883 abolition Act was itself abolished by the Criminal Procedure and Appeals (Consequential and Other Provisions) Act 2004 (section 5: The Grand Jury Abolition Act Amendment Act 1883 is repealed).

The Australian state of Victoria maintained, until 2009, provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 indictments, which had been used on rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offences. Grand juries were introduced by the Judicature Act 1874 and have been used on a very limited number of occasions. Their function in Victoria particularly relates to alleged offences either by bodies corporate or where magistrates have aborted the prosecution.

New Zealand

New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961.

Cape Colony

Trial by jury was introduced in the Cape Colony by Richard Bourke, Lieutenant Governor and acting Governor of the colony between 1826 and 1828. The acting Governor, who was later influential in the establishment of jury trial in New South Wales, obtained the consent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in August 1827 and the first Charter of Justice was issued on 24 August 1827.

Jury trial was brought into practical operation in 1828 and the 1831 Ordinance 84 laid down that criminal cases would be heard by a panel of nine, selected from males aged between 21 and 60, owning or renting property to a value of £1.17s (37 shillings) per annum or having liability for taxes of 30 shillings in Cape Town and 20 shillings outside the town. Black (i.e. non-white) jurors were not entirely excluded and sat occasionally. This is not to imply, however, that juries did not operate in an oppressive manner towards the Black African and Asian residents of the Cape, whose participation in the jury lists was, in any event, severely limited by the property qualification. The property qualification was amended in 1831 and 1861 and, experimentally, a grand jury came into operation.

The grand jury was established for Cape Town alone. It met quarterly. In 1842 it was recorded that it served a district of 50,000 inhabitants and in one quarterly session there were six presentments (1 homicide, 2 assaults, 1 robbery, 1 theft, 1 fraud).

As elsewhere, the judge could use his charge to the grand jury to bring matters of concern to him to the attention of the public and the government. In May 1879 Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick, returning from circuit in the northern and western parts of Cape Colony, gave a charge to the grand jury at the Criminal Sessions at Cape Town, in which, after congratulating them upon the lightness of the calendar, he observed there were indications in the country of a growing mutual bad feeling between the races, etc. This was reported in the Cape Argus and was a subject of a question to the government in the House of Commons in London.

The grand jury continued in operation until 1885, by which time the Cape was under responsible government, when it was abolished by Act 17 of 1885 of the Cape Parliament.

France

Grand juries were established in France in 1791 under the name jury d'accusation, but they were abolished with the introduction of the Code of Criminal Instruction in 1808.

The jury law of 1791 created an eight-man jury d'accusation in each arrondissement (a subdivision of the departement) and a 12-man jury de jugement in each departement. In each arrondissement the procureur-syndic drew up a list of 30 jurors from the electoral roll every three months for the jury d'accusation. There was no public prosecutor or juge d'instruction. Instead the police or private citizens could bring a complaint to the Justice of the Peace established in each canton (a subdivision of the arrondissement). This magistrate interrogated the accused to determine whether grounds for prosecution existed and if so sent the case to the directeur du jury (the director of the jury d'accusation), who was one of the arrondissement's civil court judges, and who served in the post for six months on a rotating basis. He decided whether to dismiss the charges or, if not, whether the case was a délit (misdemeanour) or a crime (felony, i.e. imprisonable for 2 years or more). Délits went to the tribunal de police correctionnelle of the arrondissement, while for crimes the directeur de jury convoked the jury d'accusation of the arrondissement, in order to get an indictment. The directeur du jury drew up the bill of indictment (acte d'accusation) summarising the charges to be presented to the jury d'accusation. The directeur made a presentation to the jury in the absence of the accused and the jury heard the witnesses. The jury then decided by majority vote whether there were sufficient grounds for the case to go to the tribunal criminel of the departement. Between 1792 and 1795 there was no property qualification for jurors.

The functions of the jury d’accusation were prescribed in the law of 1791 passed by the Constituent Assembly and were maintained and re-enacted in the Code des Délits et des Peines of 3 Brumaire, Year 4 (25 October 1795) and this was the operative law until it was abolished in 1808. Special juries and special grand juries were originally defined in law, for cases thought to require more qualified jurors, but these were abolished in Year 8 (1799).

Belgium

From 1795 to 1808 grand juries also operated in Belgium, which was divided into French departements in October 1795.

Japan

After World War II, under the influence of the Allies, Japan passed the Prosecutorial Review Commission Law on July 12, 1948, which created the Kensatsu Shinsakai (or Prosecutorial Review Commission (PRC) system), a figure analogue to the grand jury system. However, until 2009 the PCR's recommendations were not binding, and were only regarded as advisory. Additionally, a survey conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office in October 1990 showed that 68. 8% of surveyed Japanese citizens were not familiar with the PRC system. On May 21, 2009, the Japanese government introduced new legislation which would make the PRC's decisions binding. A PRC is made up of 11 randomly selected citizens, is appointed to a six-month term, and its primary purpose is examining cases prosecutors have chosen not to continue prosecuting. It has therefore been perceived as a way to combat misfeasance in public officials.

From 1945 to 1972 Okinawa was under American administration. Grand jury proceedings were held in the territory from 1963 until 1972. By an ordinance of the civil administration of the Ryukyu Islands promulgated in 1963, grand jury indictment and petit jury trial were assured for criminal defendants in the civil administration courts. This ordinance reflected the concern of the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. civilians tried for crimes abroad under tribunals of U.S. provenance should not be shorn of the protections of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Indeed, the District Court in Washington twice held that the absence of the jury system in the civil administration courts in Okinawa invalidated criminal convictions.

Liberia

By article 21 of the Constitution of Liberia, 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime except in cases of impeachment, cases arising in the Armed Forces and petty offenses, unless upon indictment by a Grand Jury". For example, the national Port Authority's managing director was indicted by the Monteserrado County Grand Jury in July 2015, on charges of economic sabotage, theft of property and criminal conspiracy.

Grand juries in Liberia date from the time of the original constitution in 1847.

Sierra Leone

Under the administration of the Sierra Leone Company, which began in 1792, the Governor and Council or any two members thereof, being also justices of the peace, held quarter sessions for the trial of offences committed within the colony. The process for indictment etc. was the same as the practice in England or as near as possible thereto. To effect this, they were empowered to issue their warrant or precept to the Sheriff, commanding him to summon a grand jury to sit at the court of quarter sessions. Grand juries continued in operation after the transfer to the colony to the Crown in 1807.

Governor Kennedy (1852–1854) was concerned that jurors were frustrating government policy by being biased in certain cases; in particular he felt that liberated Africans on the grand jury would never convict another liberated African on charges of owning or importing slaves. He promulgated the Ordinance of 29 November 1853 which abolished the grand jury. Opposition was immediately mounted in Freetown. A public meeting launched a petition with 550 names to the Colonial Secretary in London, and the opposition declared that the Kennedy ordinance was a reproach upon the loyalty of the community. Grand juries have been considered one colonial body representative of local opinion and the Colonial Secretary's support for Kennedy upholding the abolition inspired a round of agitation for a local voice in government decision-making.