We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.

Advertiser Disclosure

Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

How We Make Money

We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently from our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

What is Grand Jury Testimony?

By Mike Howells
Updated May 17, 2024
Our promise to you
WiseGEEK is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At WiseGEEK, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

In the American justice system, prosecutors who charge an individual with a serious crime must convince what is known as a grand jury that they have enough probable cause to warrant an indictment and criminal trial. This is generally accomplished through the presentation of evidence and grand jury testimony. Grand jury testimony is not given under oath, and witnesses who provide it are not subject to perjury, unless they lie under oath later at criminal trial.

Grand jury hearings are intended to be part of a system of checks and balances that ensure fair treatment of the accused. Jury membership is taken from the same pool of people who serve on a petit jury, which is used later if a criminal trial is deemed necessary. Grand juries are not subjected to the process of jury screening and testimony not is offered in front of a judge, though one is usually available to ensure proper procedures are maintained. A judge in a grand jury hearing is not involved in the decision of whether or not to indict.

Historically, grand juries were a feature of common law systems in many countries, however the United States is virtually the only country where they are still employed. Countries such as Australia and those in the United Kingdom have gone on to adopt a committal procedure system, in which preliminary hearings take the place of grand juries. Preliminary hearings differ in that a judge, and not a jury, decides whether a criminal trial is warranted. In the U.S., in addition to federal crimes, roughly half of the 50 states require grand jury testimony for criminal violations of state law.

A defendant is generally not present at a grand jury hearing, and there are no counter-arguments offered by the defense. Grand jury testimony is solely provided to further the prosecution. In addition, the defense has no recourse to address prosecution witnesses who lie or present illegal evidence until trial. In this way, the grand jury process has been the subject of criticism, as the jury is only privy to one side of the story.

Witnesses called on to offer testimony can be subject to subpoena, meaning they can be held in contempt of court if they do not appear and testify. Often, a witness who has compelling evidence is offered legal immunity in exchange for his cooperation. Immunity is a valuable tool for prosecutors as it allows them to persuade witnesses, who may be also be subject to criminal charges, to testify against others.

WiseGEEK is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.

Discussion Comments

By hyrax53 — On Dec 12, 2011

@Mammmood- I think that the reason a trade like you mention is seen as acceptable is because often, the risk of both the smaller criminal and the bigger one getting off in an ordinary trial's jury verdict is high enough that an exchange is worth it. If you can at least ensure that one gets convicted, especially the person seen as the worse criminal, I suppose that's better justice than everyone going free.

By Mammmood — On Dec 11, 2011

@NathanG - The whole immunity thing is a racket in my opinion. I see this played out in a lot of crime shows on television.

Some evil drug lord gets offered immunity if he will rat out some bigger drug or mafia boss. I understand that from the prosecution’s standpoint, it makes for a fair trade.

Their thinking is that they would rather catch the big fish, and are willing to let the smaller ones get clemency. Still, it’s not really right in my opinion. If you’ve done wrong, you’ve done wrong, and you should do the time in my opinion.

By NathanG — On Dec 10, 2011

@Charred - I like the committal procedure practiced in some other countries rather than our system of jurors taken from the common populace.

In a grand jury federal judges should be the ones who make the determination about whether there is a need for a criminal trial. I say this because judges are better trained.

At the risk of sounding like I am insulting my fellow peers, I feel that too often “regular folk” (myself included) are too easily swayed by emotions and other tactics that prosecutors may use in delivering their grand jury evidence.

By Charred — On Dec 10, 2011

@MrMoody - It’s not given under oath, so I guess nothing would happen. I assume that their facts would be debunked by the defense and this would be used to undermine the case provided by the prosecution.

I do agree with you however that it should be given under oath. Why it’s not is not made clear. Perhaps the idea is that some people would be afraid to give all the details in their testimony, if they were forced to do it under oath.

This is not to suggest that these people would necessarily be lying, but only that the pressure of delivering testimony under oath might cause them to fear messing up some key details, and therefore they would end up simply not saying anything. That’s my take; it’s only speculation.

By MrMoody — On Dec 09, 2011

It’s surprising to hear that grand jury testimony evidence is not subject to the restrictions against perjury. I think that restriction should hold true in all phases of the trial process, not just the actual trial itself.

Witnesses could lie to the grand jury in order to bolster the case of the prosecution, and they could do this without recourse. Does this mean that lying to a grand jury during a testimony time is not, in itself, a crime, or it's one that is not subject to perjury constraints?

So what punishments do the witnesses get if it’s shown that they lied to the grand jury – a slap on the wrist?

WiseGEEK, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

WiseGEEK, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.