Free Consultations & We're Available 24/7
WE'RE A BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM.
TRUST 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
WE SERVICE CLIENTS NATIONWIDE.
So your probably thinking the grand jury system must be fair since its made up of regular citizens reviewing evidence, or maybe your convinced that grand juries carefully weigh evidence before making decisions, or worse – you believe that getting past a grand jury must be difficult for prosecutors. Maybe you think grand juries provide a meaningful check on prosecutorial power. Maybe your hoping the statistics aren’t as bad as people say. Or maybe you believe the “ham sandwich” saying is just exaggeration. Look, let me tell you something – your desperately clinging to the myth that grand juries protect innocent people from wrongful prosecution. But heres the HORRIFYING truth – federal grand juries indict in 99.99% of cases, with only 11 out of 162,000 federal cases NOT indicted in the most recent year with complete data, making the grand jury nothing more than a rubber stamp for prosecutors according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data that proves the system is completely broken!
Let me hit you with the most damming statistic in the entire criminal justice system – federal grand juries indict 99.99% of the time. This isn’t hyperbole or estimation. In 2010, the most recent year with complete data, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases. Guess how many times grand juries refused to indict? ELEVEN. Not eleven thousand. Not eleven hundred. ELEVEN out of 162,000. That’s a 99.993% indictment rate.
Think about what that means for a second. Your more likely to get struck by lightning TWICE than to have a federal grand jury refuse to indict you. Your more likely to win the lottery than to have a grand jury say “no” to prosecutors. The statistical impossibility of avoiding indictment should terrify anyone facing federal charges.
This isn’t some anomaly or outlier year. The statistics have been consistently above 99% for decades. Former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously said prosecutors could get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich,” and he wasn’t joking. The data proves that grand juries are nothing more than prosecutorial rubber stamps, automatically approving whatever charges prosecutors want.
The numbers are so ridiculous that they expose the entire system as a sham. If 99.99% of decisions go one way, can we really call it a “decision” at all? Its more like a formality, a procedural box to check before prosecutors destroy your life. The grand jury isn’t evaluating evidence – there blindly following prosecutorial guidance toward inevitable indictment.
Federal grand juries consist of 16 to 23 members, but heres the kicker – only TWELVE need to agree to indict you. Not unanimous. Not even a super-majority. Just twelve people out of up to 23 saying “maybe he did it” is enough to charge you with federal crimes that carry decades in prison.
Think about how insane that is. In a regular trial, all twelve jurors must agree beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. But in grand jury, barely half the jurors finding probable cause gets you indicted. The math is deliberately stacked against defendants from the start.
The prosecutors know exactly how this math works. They don’t need to convince everyone – just twelve people. They can have eleven grand jurors thinking your innocent, but if twelve buy there story, your indicted. Nearly half the grand jury could have serious doubts, but it doesn’t matter. The low vote threshold combined with the 99.99% indictment rate shows how easy it is for prosecutors to get those twelve votes.
State grand juries vary in size and voting requirements, but the pattern holds – prosecutors need far fewer votes for indictment than for conviction. Some states require two-thirds, others three-quarters, but compared to unanimous verdicts at trial, these are still ridiculously easy targets for prosecutors who control all the information.
The standard of proof for grand jury indictment is “probable cause” – the same pathetically LOW bar police need to arrest you. Not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not clear and convincing evidence. Just probable cause – meaning there’s reasonable grounds to believe MAYBE you committed a crime. That’s it. That’s the “protection” you get before being charged with federal crimes.
This standard is so low its basically meaningless. Probable cause means prosecutors just need to show its possible you committed a crime. Not likely. Not certain. Just possible. If they can tell any coherent story suggesting you might have done something illegal, they’ve met the standard. No wonder the indictment rate is 99.99%.
At trial, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – eliminating all reasonable alternative explanations. But at grand jury, they just need to create suspicion. They don’t have to disprove your defense. They don’t have to address contradictory evidence. They just need to make grand jurors think “maybe this happened.” The difference between these standards is the difference between proof and suggestion.
The probable cause standard becomes even more meaningless when you realize prosecutors don’t have to present exculpatory evidence. They can show only the evidence that makes you look guilty while hiding everything that proves innocence. Meeting an already-low standard using cherry-picked evidence? That’s not justice – that’s manipulation with a legal veneer.
Everything that happens in grand jury rooms is SECRET – permanently, forever, under penalty of federal criminal prosecution. Grand jurors take lifetime oaths of secrecy. Prosecutors can’t discuss proceedings. Court reporters face prison for leaking transcripts. This secrecy is supposed to protect innocent people who aren’t indicted, but with a 99.99% indictment rate, who exactly is being protected?
The secrecy actually protects prosecutors from scrutiny, not defendants from harm. Behind closed doors, prosecutors can mislead grand jurors, misstate law, hide evidence, and manipulate proceedings without anyone knowing. There’s no judge watching. No defense attorney present. No public oversight. Just prosecutors doing whatever they want in secret, achieving 99.99% success rates.
This secrecy makes it impossible to challenge the process. You can’t prove prosecutors misled grand jurors if you don’t know what they said. You can’t demonstrate evidence was hidden if you don’t know what was presented. You can’t expose manipulation if everything is sealed forever. The secrecy that supposedly protects the process actually corrupts it by eliminating accountability.
The combination of secrecy and 99.99% indictment rates should terrify everyone. Prosecutors are getting virtually automatic indictments through secret proceedings nobody can review. They’re making life-destroying decisions behind closed doors with no oversight. The secrecy isn’t protecting anyone except prosecutors who want to operate without scrutiny.
Here’s something that will make your blood boil – even in the INCREDIBLY RARE cases where grand juries refuse to indict (remember, only 11 times out of 162,000), prosecutors can often try again! While they technically need approval from the U.S. Attorney to re-submit after a no-bill, guess who the U.S. Attorney works for? The same Department of Justice pushing for indictment.
Prosecutors have multiple ways to game the system if they don’t get there indictment the first time. They can claim new evidence has emerged. They can argue the first grand jury was confused. They can say witnesses are now available who weren’t before. The barriers to re-submission are minimal when prosecutors really want someone indicted.
Even worse, if prosecutors don’t like one grand jury’s composition, they can wait for a new grand jury to be empaneled and try again with different people. Federal grand juries serve 18-month terms, so prosecutors can literally wait out an “unfriendly” grand jury (though with 99.99% indictment rates, there’s no such thing as unfriendly).
The ability to re-submit makes the already meaningless protection of grand juries even more worthless. On the incredibly rare occasion a grand jury says no, prosecutors just repackage there case and try again. Its like letting them flip a coin until they get heads – except the coin is weighted 99.99% in there favor already.
The most OUTRAGEOUS part about grand jury proceedings is who CAN’T be there – YOU and your lawyer! That’s right, the person whose life is being destroyed isn’t allowed in the room. Your expensive defense attorney sits in the hallway. Meanwhile, prosecutors have complete control with no opposition.
The only people in that room are: the grand jurors (16-23 regular citizens), the prosecutors (sometimes multiple), one witness at a time, a court reporter, and maybe an interpreter. No judge. No defense attorney. No defendant. No public. No media. No oversight. Just prosecutors presenting there one-sided case to people who depend on them for legal guidance.
This stacked deck explains the 99.99% indictment rate. How can grand jurors make informed decisions when they only hear one side? How can they evaluate evidence fairly when prosecutors control what they see? How can they understand the law correctly when prosecutors are there only teachers? The absence of any defense presence or judicial supervision guarantees prosecutorial dominance.
Your defense lawyer – the person whose job is protecting your rights – is legally banned from the room where your fate is decided. The judge who ensures fairness in every other proceeding? Not there. The media that exposes injustice? Locked out. The public that demands accountability? Prohibited. Its a secret chamber where prosecutors reign supreme, explaining why they virtually never lose.
The 99.99% indictment rate isn’t an accident – its the inevitable result of a system designed for prosecutorial victory. When you combine all the factors, the outcome is predetermined. Prosecutors control all information, face no opposition, operate in secret, need only probable cause, and require just 12 votes from people they educate about the law. How could they possibly fail?
First, the information monopoly is absolute. Prosecutors decide what evidence to show, which witnesses to call, what questions to ask, how to frame issues. Grand jurors see only what prosecutors want them to see. They hear only the government’s version. There completely dependent on prosecutors for understanding everything. Its like asking someone to judge a debate where only one side gets to speak.
Second, the legal standards are pathetically low. Probable cause is nothing compared to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors don’t have to prove guilt – just create suspicion. They don’t have to eliminate doubt – just suggest possibility. They don’t have to present complete evidence – just enough to meet minimal standards. When the bar is set so low, even incompetent prosecutors can clear it.
Third, the structural advantages are overwhelming. No defense attorneys to object to improper questions. No judges to ensure fairness. No rules of evidence to exclude prejudicial material. No public scrutiny to discourage manipulation. Prosecutors operate without any checks or balances, free to mislead and manipulate as needed to secure indictments.
When Chief Judge Sol Wachtler said prosecutors could get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich,” people thought he was being hyperbolic. But the 99.99% indictment rate proves he was stating facts. The system is so rigged that prosecutors could literally prosecute lunch meat if they wanted.
Think about what 99.99% means in practical terms. It means grand juries NEVER say no. It means the review process is meaningless. It means probable cause is automatically found. It means indictment is guaranteed. It means your facing a system where the outcome is decided before proceedings begin.
The ham sandwich quote has become famous because it perfectly captures the absurdity of modern grand juries. There not weighing evidence or protecting citizens – there rubber-stamping prosecutorial decisions. The grand jury that was supposed to stand between citizens and government tyranny has become the tool of that tyranny.
Every time someone says “but a grand jury indicted him, so there must be something there,” remember the ham sandwich. Remember 99.99%. Remember that grand jury indictment means absolutely nothing except that prosecutors wanted charges filed. The indictment itself provides zero information about actual guilt or innocence.
While federal statistics are the most comprehensive, state grand jury indictment rates follow similar patterns. Though data is harder to obtain, every study shows prosecutors getting indictments in the overwhelming majority of cases. State grand juries might indict at 95% or 97% instead of 99.99%, but that’s still essentially automatic.
The slightly lower state rates often reflect procedural differences, not meaningful review. Many states allow prosecutors to use preliminary hearings instead of grand juries, so only select cases go to grand juries. Even with these differences, the pattern holds – when prosecutors want indictments from grand juries, they get them.
Some states don’t even require grand juries for most felonies, letting prosecutors file charges directly through criminal complaints. But when grand juries are used, they function identically to federal ones – prosecutors present one-sided evidence to dependent grand jurors who almost always indict.
The universality of high indictment rates across federal and state systems proves this isn’t about individual prosecutor skill or specific jurisdiction rules. Its about a fundamentally broken system that’s been corrupted from its original purpose. Whether federal or state, grand juries have become indictment machines rather than citizen protections.
The ONLY time grand juries regularly refuse to indict is when police officers kill civilians. Suddenly, mysteriously, prosecutors can’t get indictments. The same prosecutors who achieve 99.99% success rates against regular citizens somehow fail when cops are involved. What an amazing coincidence!
In Harris County, Texas, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. In Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 police shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just ONE indictment. The same grand jury system that automatically indicts everyone else suddenly becomes skeptical when reviewing police violence.
This exception proves prosecutors control outcomes completely. When they want indictments (regular citizens), they get them 99.99% of the time. When they don’t want indictments (police officers), they don’t get them. The grand jury isn’t making independent decisions – there following prosecutorial guidance either toward or away from indictment.
The police exception exposes the entire system as a sham. If grand juries were really independent bodies carefully weighing evidence, indictment rates wouldn’t swing from 99.99% to near 0% based on who’s being charged. The massive disparity proves grand juries are prosecutor-controlled tools, not independent reviewers of evidence.
Call us RIGHT NOW at 212-300-5196
With 99.99% indictment rates, you NEED aggressive defense immediately!
Available 24/7 because grand juries are just rubber stamps for prosecutors!
The bottom line is federal grand juries indict in a STAGGERING 99.99% of cases – only 11 out of 162,000 cases weren’t indicted in 2010! This isn’t justice – its a prosecutorial conveyor belt to indictment. With only 12 out of 23 jurors needed, probable cause as the pathetic standard, total secrecy protecting prosecutors, and no defense participation allowed, the outcome is predetermined. The famous “ham sandwich” quote isn’t a joke – its a statistical fact. State rates are nearly as bad. The ONLY exception is police shootings where prosecutors mysteriously can’t get indictments. Call us IMMEDIATELY – with 99.99% indictment rates, you need attorneys who understand your facing a rigged system, not a fair process!
This is attorney advertising. Prior results dont guarantee similar outcomes. Statistics show grand juries are prosecution-controlled.
Very diligent, organized associates; got my case dismissed. Hard working attorneys who can put up with your anxiousness. I was accused of robbing a gemstone dealer. Definitely A law group that lays out all possible options and best alternative routes. Recommended for sure.
- ROBIN, GUN CHARGES ROBIN
NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS