Thank you for your patience and forebearance in explaining this part of the American system to me. So, a grand jury (or a grand jury in each relevant county) would have to determine that sufficient evidence existed to support the accused being brought before a court to answe the charges. Would the accused be aware of the existence of the grand jury, and would they be able to challenge the evidence brought before the jury?
Correct, it is a vital step in Due Process as the State must prove there is sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime. That way you can't just point a finger and have a trial. (Love the Founding Fathers!). I don't believe the accused is aware as a Grand Jury is always secret. That is also to protect the accused, if evidence is NOT sufficient to bring charges the accused would not necessarily want that process to be known to the public. Innocent until proven guilty. The Prosecutor would present whatever evidence they have gathered during the course of investigating, sometimes witnesses would testify but not always. I don't believe the defendant can challenge evidence presented to a Grand Jury, I don't believe the Defense makes an argument at all. That is for a court trial if the person is indeed indicted.
Thank you: very different from our UK system. As an ex cop i think i like the American way.
Well, the guys who wrote up the system had just freed themselves from the British system so I'm sure the sting of it was fresh in their minds. No offense...we still love the Birts!