There are several differences between a trial jury and a grand jury. Three of these differences being that a grand jury makes a decision given only the prosecutors evidence, grand juries are only used in certain states, and in trial juries attorneys from each side are allowed to question and challenge jurors beforehand. These differences, while not seeming overtly consequential, provide enough difference between the two to make each type distinctive. Once a grand jury is assembled they are tasked to take around three months to review any and all evidence the prosecutor has to use against the defendant. This evidence can be anything from testimonies from witnesses, to physical or tangible evidence. After a grand jury has seen all the evidence and has had time to deliberate, the jury decides whether or not to issue and indictment. The difference seen here, is that a trial jury has the opportunity to hear from both sides and view their respective evidence before coming to a decision. Many people see the one-sided view given to the grand jury as a “rubber stamp” for most prosecutors, virtually ensuring the offender's conviction. …show more content…
With over ninety-nine percent of grand jury cases resulting in a conviction, a grand jury is seen as little more than a prosecutors key to success, or in this case, conviction. Grand juries are only required in the federal government and less than one-third of the states. The remaining states do not require a grand jury, but instead give the option of either a grand or trial jury. It could be said that many officials see the trial jury as more fair than a grand jury, ere go the grand jury requirement being lower throughout the