Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P15 potx

and several media outlets declared him the unofficial winner. However, vote tallies from the late afternoon and early evening revealed that Bush had closed the gap. By the evening of November 7, the totals showed that although Gore had won the popular vote, Bush won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Gore immediately requested a recount of the votes in the state of Florida, where voting procedures had caused a great deal of controversy. For the next month, the results of the election hung in the balance as both sides postured in a series of court disputes. However, the U .S. Supreme Court, in BUSH V. GORE, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000), overturned an order by the Florida Supreme Court requiring a recount of ballots in several counties. Gore then conceded the election to B ush. In 2001 Gore accepted a position at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism as a visiting professor. He has also accepted teaching positions at universities in his home state of Tennessee. Although many observers expected him to run again for president in the 2004 elections—and although a number of grassroots organizations had urged his running—Gore announced in December 2002 that he would not enter the race. “I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign, but I don’t think it’s the right thing for me to do,” he said in an interview with the CBS program 60 Minutes. “I think that a campaign that would be a rematch between myself and President Bush would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about.” By 2006 Gore had reinvented himself as a leading, vocal environmentalist. That year, his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was wildly popular. It became the third highest grossing documentary of all time. An Inconvenient Truth won Gore and the other filmmakers an Academy Award for best docu- mentary and numerous other awards. The film was not Gore’s only media work. He was also the creator of Current TV, an interactive cable network targeted at young people. In addition, Gore was the co-organizer of July 7, 2007, Live Earth: The Concert for a Climate in Crisis. This media event in which live concerts took place on all seven continents and aired world-wide to raise awareness about environmental issues. With the success of An Inconveni ent Truth, as well as its companion book of the same name, Gore was repeatedly asked if he would run for president in 2008. He denied any further political ambitions and never sought the presidency in 2008. He found it easier to push for environmental change outside of political office. However, call for Gore to run only increased after he was the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work. Instead, Gore has continued his activist work and he joined the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, as a partner in November 2007. For all his success and influence, Time maga zine named him runner- up to person of the year in 2007. His most recent book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, was pubished in November 2009. FURTHER READINGS Gore, Al. 2007. The Assault on Reason. New York: Penguin Press. “Gore Says He Won’t Run in 2004.” 2002. CNN.com: Inside Politics. Available online at <www.cnn.com/2002/ ALLPOLITICS/12/15/gore/index.html> (accessed Au- gust 18, 2009). Turque, Bill. 2000. Inventing Al Gore: A Biography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE A rule that provides that any organization run by a branch of the government is immune from taxation. GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION The Government National Mortgage Associa- tion (GNMA), also known as Ginnie Mae, is a corporation wholly owned by the federal government. Created by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 825 Stat. 491, GNMA is designed to support the federal government’s housing programs by establishing a secondary market for the sale and purchase of residential mortgages. During the late 1960s, the federal govern- ment expressed concern that available credit for low-income housing was insufficient to meet the growing demand. In response, GNMA began issuing certificates to obtain additional funds for government-backed, low-income mortgages. GNMA certificates entitle their holders to receive a portion of the income derived from a GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 128 GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE residential mortgage pool approved by the government. A residential mortgage pool consists of a group of mortgages that are issued by private lenders, including commercial banks and sav- ings and loan institutions. Each mortgage pool includes 1,000 residential mortgages. The revenue generated by the sale of these pools helps make additional credit available for low-income residential mortgages insured by government agencies such as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veter- ans Affairs (VA), and the Farmers Home Admin- istration. The DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT , which is responsible for administer- ing GNMA, oversees the entire program. GNMA mortgage pools and mortgage- backed SECURITIES (MBSs) are considered stable investments by securities dealers and investors alike. The timely payment of principal and interest on each mortgage is guaranteed by GNMA and the full faith and credit of the federal government. GNMA enjoys unlimited authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury in order to make good on this guarantee. By developing a stable and viable secondary market for government-backed residential mortgages, GNMA has originated more than $2.8 trillion in securities trading. The revenue generated through this secondary market has enabled millions of low-income families to purchase homes and provided the U.S. Treasury with annual receipts sometimes exceeding $400 million. In 1994 President BILL CLINTON outlined the National Homeowners Strategy, which spurred GNMA to undertake an intense and sweeping review of its practices and programs. In addition, GNMA has been working to satisfy internal mandates that require it to enhance its customer service, improve its relations with other businesses, and better market its securi- ties. GNMA has incorporated the latest tech- nology and automation to achieve these goals and has hired consultants to market its residential mortgage pools. GNMA continues to streamline its docu- mentation procedures and make efforts to eliminate paperwork, such as accepting electron- ic confirmation of insurance rather than relying on paper insurance certificates. It has begun an ambitious program to increase home ownership by minority families. Since its inception in 1968, GNMA has given more than 35 million families access to affordable mortgage costs. GNMA’s mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) fared better than others during the housing FORECLOSURE and mortgage crisis of 2008 and early 2009 because GNMA’s are the only ones to carry the full faith and credit GUARANTY of the United States government. In fact, as investors fled the private mortgage securities market (led by private lenders without government backing) following its collapse, GNMA actually grew in 2009. It announced that for the first six months of 2009, it had provided nearly $207 billion of liquidity to the MBS secondary market, com- pared with $107 billion for the first six months of 2008. FURTHER READINGS Benson, John D. 1991. “Ending the Turf Wars: Support for a CFTC/SEC Consolidation.” Villanova Law Review 36. Ginnie Mae. 2009. Available online at tp://www.ginniemae. gov/about.asp?section=about; website home page: http://www.ginniemae.gov/ index.asp (accessed Sep- tember 10, 2009). Hadaway, Beverly L., and Paula C. Murray. 1986. “Mortgage Backed Securities: An Investigation of Legal and Financial Issues.” Journal of Corporation Law 11. Malloy, Robin P. 1986. “The Secondary Mortgage Market: A Catalyst for Change in Real Estate Transactions.” Southwestern Law Journal 39. CROSS REFERENCES Corporations; Credit; Guarantor; Foreclosure; Mortgage GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Since the mid-ni neteenth century, one govern- ment establishment has existed to fill the printing, binding, and distribution needs of the federal government. Established on June 23, 1860, by Congressional JOINT RESOLUTION No. 25, the Government Printing Office (GPO) has provided publication supplies and services to the U.S. Congress, the executive departments, and all other agencies of the federal govern- ment. The definition of the duties set forth in the 1860 resolution has stayed essentially the same over the years, with only one amendment in all that time, 44 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. The GPO is overseen by the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing. The head of the GPO works under the title public printer and is appointed by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES with the consent of the Senate. The public printer is also legally required to be a “practical GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 129 printer versed in the art of bookbinding” (44 U.S.C.A. § 301). The GPO uses a variety of printing and binding processes, including electronic photo composition; letterpress printing; Linotype and hand composition; photopolymer platemaking; offset photography; stripping, platemaking, and presswork; and manual and machine book- binding. The GPO also provides supplies such as blank paper and ink to federal agencies, prepares catalogs, and sells and distributes some publications to civilians. The GPO offers catalogs that detail publica- tions available to the public. All catalogs are available from the superintendent of documents at the GPO. The GPO Sales Publications Reference File, which is issued biweekly on magnetic tape, lists the author, the title, and subject inform- ation for each new publication. A more comprehensive listing, the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, serves as an index to all the publications handled by the GPO. The GPO also offers two free catalogs for people who are interested in new or popular pub- lications: U.S. Government Books and New Books. The first lists the titles of best-selling govern- ment publications, and the second is a bimonthly listing of government publications for sale. The approximately 20,000 publications listed in these catalogs can be purchased by mail from the GPO’s superintendent of documents. In addition, the books and catalogs published by the GPO can be purchased at the approximately two-dozen GPO bookstores open to the public. Most of the bookstores are located in govern- ment hub cities such as Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles. Publications are also available for public Government Printing Office Public Printer Deputy Public Printer Chief Management Officer Acting Superintendent of Documents Chief of Staff Chief Technology Officer Inspector General Congressional Relations Equal Employment Opportunity General Counsel Quality Assurance Library Services & Content Management Publication & Information Sales Official Journals of Government Plant Operations Security & Intelligent Documents Agency Accounts & Marketing Operations Support Print Procurement Information Technology and Systems Environmental Services Labor Relations Human Capital Acquisitions Finance & Administration Communications Office ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 130 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE perusal at select depository libraries around the United States. Owing to the large volume of documents produced by the various federal agencies, the GPO does not handle all of the printing and binding services for the government. In some instances, the GPO takes bids from commercial suppliers and awards contracts to those with the lowest bids. From there, the GPO serves as a connection between ordering agencies and con- tractors. The booklet How to Do Business with the Government Printing Office provides a back- ground and instructions for contracting with the GPO and submitting bids. The booklet can be requested from any GPO regional printing procurement office. Any printing or binding contract inquiries can be directed to one of 13 offices, located in Atlanta; Boston; Chicago; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas; Denver; Hampton, Virginia; Los Angeles; New York; Philadelphia; St. Louis; San Francisco; and Seattle. Since the mid-1990s many of the docu- ments published by the GPO have been available in electronic formats. During the mid-1990s, GPO distributed CD-ROM pro- ducts containing government documents to thousands of American libraries. Many of these documents are now available through GPO’s Web site, known as GPO Access. The site contains hundreds of thousands of individual documents from the various federal depart- ments and agencies. It has become particularly useful for attorneys who need to locate such information as administrative regulations and LEGISLATIVE HISTORY of federal statutes. FURTHER READINGS “Keeping America Informed: The United States Government Printing Office.” Available online at http://www.access. gpo.gov/congress/gpopub250-2.pdf; website home page: http://www.access.gpo.gov (accessed July 27, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/index (accessed July 21, 2009). U.S. Government Printing Office. 2001. Guide to Federal Publishing. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. CROSS REFERENCES Congress of the United States; Legislative History. GRAB LAW State statutory provisions and common-law principles that govern the aggressive use of legal and equitable remedies, such as attachment and garnishment, by creditors to collect payment from debtors. State laws governing debtor and creditor transactions emphasize the importance of prompt action by creditors to ensure payment of the debtor’s outstanding debts. For example, the first creditor to attach the debtor’s property is most likely to be paid. The quicker the creditor acts to seize or “grab” the debtor’s assets, the greater the chance the creditor’s claims will be satisfied. As a result, grab law has come to designate aggressive, but legal, methods used by creditors to enforce their rights to payment against delinquent debtors. GRACE PERIOD In insurance law, a period beyond the due date of a premium (usually thirty or thirty-one days) during which the insurance is continued in force and during which the payment may be made to keep the policy in good standing. The grace period for payment of the premium does not provide free insurance or operate to continue the policy in force after it expires by agreement of the parties. Grace period may also refer to a period of time provided for in a loan agreement during which default will not occur even though a payment is overdue. GRADUATED TAX Tax structured so that the rate incr eases as the amount of income of taxpayer increases. GRAFT A colloquial term referring to the unlawful acquisition of public money through questionable and improp er transactions with public officials. Graft is the personal gain or advantage earned by an individual at the expense of others as a result of the exploitation of the singular status of, or an influential relationship with, another who has a position of public trust or confidence. The advantage or gain is accrued without any exchange of legitimate compensa- tory services. Behavior that leads to graft includes BRIBERY and dishonest dealings in the performance of public or official acts. Graft usually implies the existence of THEFT, corruption, FRAUD, and the lack of integrity that is expected in any transaction involving a public official. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRAFT 131 GRAND JURY A panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the govern- ment to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime. An American institution since the colonial days, the grand jury has long played an important role in CRIMINAL LAW. The FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution says that a person suspected of a federal crime cannot be tried until a grand jury has determined that there is enough reason to charge the person. Review by a gra nd jury is meant to protect suspects from inappropriate prosecution by the government, since grand jurors are drawn from the general population. It has been criticized at times as failing to serve its purpose. The grand jury system originated in twelfth- century England, when King Henry II enacted the ASSIZE of Clarendon in order to take control of the courts from the Catholic Church and local nobility. The proclamation said that a person could not be tried as a criminal unless a certain number of local citizens appeared in court to accuse him or her of specific crimes. This group of citizens, known as the grand assize, was very powerful: It had the authority to identify suspects, present evidence personally held by individual jurors, and determine whether to make an ACCUSATION. Trial was by ordeal, so accusation meant that conviction was very likely. (Trial by ordeal involved subjecting the DEFENDANT to some physical test to deter- mine guilt or innocence. For example, in ordeal by water, a suspect was thrown into deep water: if he or she floated, the verdict was guilty; if the suspect sank, the verdict was innocent.) The grand assize was not designed to protect suspects, and it changed very little over the next five hundred years. Then, in 1681, its reputation began to evolve. An English grand jury denied King Charles II’s wish for a public hearing in the cases of two Protestants accused of TREASON for opposing his attempts to reestablish the Catholic Church. The grand jury held a private session and refused to indict the two suspects. This gave the grand jury new respect as a means of protection against government bullying (although ultimately in those particular cases, the king found a different grand jury willing to indict the suspects). After this small act of rebellion, the grand jury became known as a potential protector of people facing baseless or politically motivated prosecution. The early colonists brou ght this concept to America, and by 1683, all colonies had some type of grand jury system in place. Over the next century, grand juries became more sympathetic to those who resisted British rule. In 1765, for example, a Boston grand jury refused to indict leaders of protests against the STAMP ACT, a demonstration of resistance to colonialism. The grand jury was consid ered important enough to be incorporated into the U.S . Constitution, and has remained largely un- changed. Grand juries are used in the federal and most state courts. Federal grand juries use a standard set of rules. States are free to formulate their own pretrial requirements, and they vary greatly in the number of grand jurors they seat, the limits they place on the deliberations of those jurors, and whether a grand jury is used at all. federal courts use a grand jury that consists of 23 citizens but can operate with a QUORUM of 16. Twelve jurors’ votes are required for an INDICTMENT. States use a grand jury consisting of as few as five but no more than 23 members. Grand juries are chosen from lists of qualified state residents of LEGAL AGE, who have no t been convicted of a crime, and who are not biased against the subject of the investigation. The usual role of a grand jury is to review the adequacy of evidence presented by the PROSECUTOR and then decide whether to indict the suspect. In some cases, a grand jury decides which charges are appropriate. Generally, grand jurors do not lead investigations, but can question WITNESSES to satisfy themselves that evidence is adequate and usable. The prosecutor prepares a BILL OF INDICTMENT (a list explaining the case and possible charges) and presents evidence to the grand jury. The jurors can call witnesses, including the target of the investiga- tion, without revealing the nature of the case. They call witnesses by using a document called a SUBPOENA. A person who refuses to answer the grand jury’s questions can be punished for contempt of court. However, no witness need answer incriminating questions unless that witness has been granted IMMUNITY. In federal courts, the jurors may accept hearsay and other evidence that is normally not admissible at trial. If the grand jury agrees that there is sufficient reason to charge the suspect with a crime, it returns an indictment carrying the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 132 GRAND JURY words true bill. If there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the grand jury, it returns an indict- ment carrying the words no bill. Seldom do grand juries issue documents. However, when given a judge’spermissiontodo so, they may use a report to denounce the conduct of a government figure or organization against whom an indictment is not justified or allowed. This occurred in 1973, when U.S. district court judge John J. Sirica allowed the grand jury investigating the WATERGATE scandals to criticize President Richard Nixon’sconductin covering up the involvement of his administra- tion in the June 17, 1972, BURGLARY of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Apartment and Hotel complex. The judge recommended that the report be forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee to assist in proceedings to IMPEACH the president. Many states allow the issuance of grand jury reports, but limit their use: The target must be a public official or institution who can be denounced only where statutory authority exists, and the resulting document can be released publicly only with a judge’sapproval. In February 1996, for the first time in history, a first lady of the United States was required to appear before a grand jury. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON testified for four hours before a federal grand jury on the disappearance and reappearance of billing records related to her representation of a failed investment institution that was under scrutiny when she was an attorney in Arkansas. Her testimony was part of the WHITEWATER investigation, which exam- ined past financial dealings of Hillary Rodham Clinton, President BILL CLINTON, and others. Critics have complained that the grand jury offers witnesses and suspected criminals insuf- ficient protection. The cause of the controversy is the set of rule s that govern the operation of federal grand juries. For example, a prosecutor manages the work of the grand jury, which some say is contradictory since the job of prosecutor is to prove a defendant’s guilt. Another contradiction, according to critics, is that a defense attorney does not represent the suspect. Instead, prosecutors may be required in state grand jury proceedings to present, on behalf of the suspect, information that they feel is exculpatory (so strong that it could create a REASONABLE DOUBT that the suspect committed the crime); however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal prosecutors are not required to do so in federal grand jury proceedings (United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 [1992]). In arguing that a suspect should be charged, prosecutors may make arguments and use information that would normally not be admissible during a trial. Witnesses who are called before a grand jury are not allowed to have an attorney present when they testify. This holds true for a witness who may be a suspect. A final concern is that grand juries meet in secret, and a formal record of federal grand jury proceedings is not usually provided to the suspect even after indictment. Critics of the current system claim that justice is ill served by these rules. They say that ambitious prosecutors may be tempted to misuse the powers of a nonprofessional grand jury to harass, trap, or wear down witnesses. For example, activists who opposed the VIETNAM WAR during the 1960s and 1970s accused the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT of abusing the grand jury system as it searched for information about political dissidents. The activists believed that the department used the power and secrecy of the grand jury to intimidate witnesses and fish for evidence. Members of the news media, the business community, and organized la bor, have also criticized the institution. Supporters of the current system say that the secrecy of the grand jury’s work prevents several things, including a suspect from escap- ing, attempts to influence jurors, and the coaching or intimidation of witnesses. Suppor- ters also contend that the system encourages candid testimony and protects the privacy of innocent suspects who are later cleared. Re- garding witnesses’ lack of LEGAL REPRESENTATION, supporters of the STATUS QUO point out that delay, disruption, and rehearsed testimony would lessen the efficiency of the grand jury’s work and would result in a MINITRIAL. Similar arguments have been made against limiting evidence that would not be admissible at trial. In addition, federal courts have held that because the rights of a suspect are adequately protected during trial, where the strength or weakness of evidence determines the verdict, no examination of grand jury indictment proceed- ings is necessary. Grand juries also face criticism in the area of jury selection, especially with high-profile cases. Criticism focuses on bias and a lack of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRAND JURY 133 Should the Grand Jury Be Abolished? T hough the grand jury has existed in the United States since the colonial period, and the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution requires its use in federal criminal proceedings, it has come under increasing attack. Critics charge that it no longer serves the functions the Framers intended, and therefore should be abolished. Defenders admit there may be some problems with it, but contend that these can be remedied. Critics aim their attacks at both federal and state grand juries. They note that a grand jury has two functions. One is to review evidence of criminal wrong- doing and to issue an INDICTMENT if the evidence is sufficient. The other is to be an investigative arm of the government, helping the PROSECUTOR gather evidence. Critics contend that in both areas contemporary grand juries have failed. In reviewing evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a grand jury is supposed to act as a shield against ill-conceived or MALICIOUS prosecutions. Yet critics charge that grand juries typically rubber- stamp the prosecution’s moves, indicting anyone the prosecutor cares to bring before it. Historically the grand jury was not dominated by a professional prosecutor. Without a strong attorney leading the way, the grand jury was forced to be independent and diligent in reviewing evidence brought before it. Critics note that many states abol- ished all or part of the grand jury’s jurisdiction at the end of the nineteenth century, in large part because the process had come increasingly under the control of prosecutors. States acknowledged that a professional criminal prosecutor did not need a grand jury’s assistance in the charging process. The prosecutor was capable of making an independent, DISINTERESTED review of the need to bring charges. Though 48 states have grand juries as part of their criminal justice system, many of these judicial bodies are now reserved for serious felonies, usually first-degree MURDER. Those who favor ABOLITION of the grand jury argue that the domination of the prosecutor has led to a passivity that destroys the legitimacy of the grand jury concept. Most grand jurors have little background in law and must rely on the prosecutor to educate them about the applicable law and help them apply the law. In addition, at the federal level, there are very complex criminal laws, like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orga- nizations statute. Even lawyers find many of these laws difficult to fathom, yet grand jurors are expected to understand them and apply them to intricate fact situations. Not surprisingly, charge the critics, the grand jury tends to follow the prosecution’s advice. Critics point out that though the Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury indictment for all federal crimes, the accused may waive this requirement and accept charges filed by a prosecutor alone on all but capital crimes. Waivers are frequent, and most prosecutions of even serious offenses are initiated by federal prosecutors. Therefore, critics argue that it makes no sense to take additional time and money for a grand jury to convene and participate in a hollow ritual. For its critics the grand jury has declined from a proactive community voice to a passive instrument of the prosecution. Though the U.S. Supreme Court may talk about the historic importance of the grand jury in Anglo- American justice, few academics defend the institution based on its current performance. Faced with this poor per- formance, the critics argue that abolition is the best course. It would make the prosecutor directly accountable for the charging decision and remove the illu- sion that grand jurors are in control. Defenders of the grand jury ac- knowledge that there are problems with the modern system, but insist the grand jury is worth saving. Despite its short- comings the grand jury still allows citizens to help make important com- munity decisions. Though critics may deplore prosecutorial domination of grand juries, they overgeneralize when they call the grand juries rubber stamps for the state. Congress recognized the competency and importance of citizen input when, in the ORGANIZED CRIME Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3332–3333), it authorized the creation of “special” grand juries to investigate organized crime, return indictments if warranted, and issue reports on the results of their investigations. Supporters also believe that the critics overemphasize the importance of the grand jury in acting as a shield against government OPPRESSION. The key function of the grand jury is to enhance the legitimacy of the criminal charges that are returned. Prosecutors use the grand jury to gain community support for charges that might otherwise be perceived as based on racial bias, political motivation, or prosecutorial vindictive- ness. A grand jury review may also help a prosecutor avoid bringing charges where the formal requisites of a crime are present but the community’s moral sense would regard charges as unjust. Some supporters of the grand jury admit that it could be improved by severing the close tie between prosecutor and jurors. They point out that Hawaii provides grand juries with their own attorney. Such a “grand jury counsel” provides independent legal advice and acts as a buffer between jurors and prosecutors. This, in turn, makes grand juries more independent and gives their indictments more credibility. Some scho- lars have argued that though using such a system nationwide would cost more, the added expense would be a small price to pay to reinvigorate the grand jury and restore it to its proper role as a voice of the community. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 134 GRAND JURY balance in the selection process. The require- ment that grand juries be unbiased has evolved since 1807, when Vice President AARON BURR was indicted as a traitor. Burr insisted that theevidenceagainsthimbeheardbyan “impartial” jury as guaranteed in the SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution. He successfully challenged many jurors on the all-Republican grand jury that had been selected. Burr was willing to accept jurors who were familiar with some details of his famous case but who claimed they had n ot drawn any conclusions about it. (Although he was indicted, B urr was eventually acquitted at trial.) In the early twenty-first century, an unbi- ased grand jury means one that comprises people who have no prior familiarity with the facts of the case. Critics of this requirement say that it greatly limits the quality of people who are chosen to sit, since many intelligent, engaged, and otherwise ideal candidates for a grand jury also follow the news. On June 24, 1994, a California state judge dismissed a grand jury that was considering whether to indict former athlete and media personality O. J. SIMPSON for the MURDER of his ex-wife and her friend. The judge was responding to concerns, of both the prosecutor and the defendant, that grand jurors had been exposed to PRETRIAL PUBLICITY that might prejudice them—such as transcripts of 911 calls made by Simpson’s ex-wife after he broke down the back door to her house. After numerous struggles to balance grand juries racially and by gender, federal CASE LAW provides that “a defendant may challenge the array of grand jurors on the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn or sum- moned in accordance with law, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified” (Estes v. United States, 335 F.2d 609, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964, 85 S. Ct. 656, 13 L. Ed. 2d 559). There have been suggestions that the federal grand jury should be abolished, but this action seems unlikely because it would change the BILL OF RIGHTS for the first time. In addition, the investigative and indicting roles of the courts have to be performed by some entity, and an alternative entity may be less desirable than the grand jury. Some states have abolished grand Hearsay Evidence: Admissible before aGrandJury? T B he rules of evidence prohibit the introduction of most hearsay evidence in a cri minal trial. (Hearsay is evidence given by a person concerning what someone else said outside of court.) However, when Frank Costello, alias F rancisco Castaglia, a notorious organized crime figure of the 1940s and 1950s, argued that his conviction for federal income tax evasion should be overturned because the grand jury that indicted him heard only hearsay evidence, th e Supreme Court rejected his claim (Costello v. United States, 350U.S.359,76S.Ct.406, 100 L. Ed. 397 [1956]). Prior to his trial, Costello asked to inspect the grand jury record. He claimed there could have been no legal or competent evidence before the grand jury that indicted him. The judge refused the request. At trial, Costello’s attorneys established that three investigating officers were the only witnesses to testify before the grand jury. These officers summa- rized the vast amount of evidence compiled by their investigation and introduced computations showing, if correct, that Costello had received far greater income than he had reported. Their summaries clearly constituted hearsay, because the three officers had no firsthand knowledge of the transactions upon which their computations were based. Therefore, Costello alleged a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and asked that hearsay evidence be barred from grand jury proceedings. Justice Hugo L. Black, in his ma jority opinion, rejected these claims, noti ng that “neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act.” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRAND JURY 135 juries or provided alternatives. For example, in some states, prosecutors are allowed to file an information, which is a formal list of charges, usually submitted with notice of some kind of PROBABLE CAUSE hearing. Other suggestions for change at the federal level may experience more success. Among those promoted by groups such as the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION are: n Better instructions from judges to jurors about the grand jury’spowersandits independence from prosecutors n Reports by prosecutors on the performance of the grand jury system n Increased access to g rand jury transcripts for suspects who are eventually indicted n Expanded safeguards against abuse of witnesses, including education about their rights and the presence of their attorneys n Notification of targets of investigations that they are targets n Optional rather than mandatory appear- ances by targets of investigations n An end to the requirement that p rosecutors present defen se evidence, and replacement with a requirement that grand jurors be informed that the defense was not repre- sented in the hearing. FURTHER READINGS Beale, Sara Sun, et al. 1997. Grand Jury Law and Practice. 2d ed. Eagan, MN: West. Brenner, Susan W. 1995. “The Voice of the Community: A Case for Grand Jury Independence.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 3(fall).Availableonlineat http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm; website home page: http://campus.udayton.edu (accessed July 27, 2009). Farrel, Lyn, ed. 2002. The Federal Grand Jury. New York: Nova. Goldstein, Howard W. 1998. Grand Jury Practice. New York: Law Journal Seminars-Press. Iraola, Roberto. 2003. “Terrorism, Grand Juries, and the Federal Material Witness Statute.” St. Mary’s Law Journal 34 (winter). Leipold, Andrew D. 1995. “Why Grand Juries Do Not (and Cannot) Protect the Accused.” Cornell Law Review 80 (January). Available online at http://freedomlaw.com/ GRANDJRY.html; website home page: http:// freedomlaw.com (accessed July 27, 2009). Simmons, Ric. 2002. “Re-Examining the Grand Jury: Is There Room for Democracy in the Criminal Justice System?” Boston Univ. Law Review 82 (February). Skolnik, Sam. 1999. “Grand Jury: Power Shift?” Legal Times (April 12). Available online at http://www. truthinjustice.org/grandjury.htm; website home page: http://www.truthinjustice.org (accessed July 27, 2009). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Office of Development, Testing and Dissemination. Grand Jury Reform: A Review of Key Issues. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Worden, Amy. 2000. “Lawyers Target ‘Lawless’ Federal Grand Juries.” ABP News Online. Available online at http://www.crimelynx.com/gjref.html; website home page: http://www.crimelynx.com (accessed July 27, 2009). CROSS REFERENCE Clarendon, Constitutions of. GRAND LARCENY A category of larceny—the offense of illegally taking the property of another—in which the value of the property taken is greater than that set for petit larceny. At COMMON LAW, the punishment for grand larceny was death. In the early 2000s, grand LARCENY is a statutory crime punished by a fine, imprisonment, or both. GRANDFATHER CLAUSE A portion of a statute that provides that the law is not applicable in certain circum stances due to preexisting facts. Grandfather clauses, which were originally intended to prevent black pe ople from voting, were named for provisions adopted by the constitutions of some states. Such amendments sought to interfere with an individual’srightto vote by setting forth difficult requirements. For example, common requirements were owner- ship of a large amount of land or the ability to read and write portions of the state and federal constitutions. The name grandfather clause arose from the exceptions that were made for veterans of the Civil War. If the veterans were qualified to vote prior to 1866, their descendants were also qualified. Thus, in effect, if a person’s grandfather could vote, he could vote without further restrictions. These statutes accomplished precisely what was intended, because nearly all slaves and their descendants were disqualified from voting because they could not satisfy the statutory requirements. In the 1915 case of Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S. Ct. 926, 59 L. Ed. 1340, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES examined a grandfather clause that was added to the Oklahoma constitution shortly following its GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 136 GRAND LARCENY admission to the Union. The 1910 CONSTITU- TIONAL AMENDMENT required that prospective voters pass a literacy test in order to qualify to vote. However, anyone who was entitled to vote on January 1, 1866, or any time earlier under any form of government, or who at that time lived in a foreign country, was exempt from satisfying the literacy test requirement. The lineal descendants of such exempted persons also were exempt from such a requirement. In reality, the amendment recreated and perpetu- ated the very conditions that the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT was intended to destroy, even though race was never mentioned as a voter qualification. The Court held that the clause was in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Oklahoma argued that states had the power to set forth voter qualifications. Therefore, the statute in controversy did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because race was not mentioned as a voter qualification. The Supreme Court was in agreement that states have the right to determine who is qualified to vote; however, they are permitted to do so only within constitutional limits. The limit that proscribes consideration of the race of voters extends to sophisticated as well as simple- minded DISCRIMINATION, and equality under the law cannot be based upon whether a person’s grandfather was a free man. Oklahoma undertook to change its law following this decision. The revised statute said that everyone who was able to vote as a result of the grandfather clause automatically contin- ued to be eligible and those who had been denied voting rights were given 12 days in 1916 to register to vote. If they were out of the county where they resided or if they were prevented from registering by sickness or unavoidable circumstances, they were given an additional 50 days in 1916 to register. After that time black persons who tried to register to vote were turned away, because the time to register outside the grandfather clause had ended in 1916. In the 1939 case of Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 59 S. Ct. 872, 83 L. Ed. 1281, the Supreme Court rejected Oklahoma’s new scheme, calling it another example of an attempt by a state to thwart equality in the right to vote regardless of race or color. The Court ruled that the proposed remedy, in the form of such a limited registration period, was inadequate. A group of citizens who lacked the habits and traditions of political independence deserved a greater opportunity to register to vote. The term grandfather clause in its current application refers to a legislative provision that permits an exemption based upon a preexisting condition. For example, through the application of gra ndfather clauses, certain prerogatives are extended to those regularly engaged in a particular profession, occupation, or business that is regulated by statute or ordinance. Such a clause might allow an individual, who has been in continuous practice in a particular profession for a specific period, to circumvent certain licensing requirements. GRANGER MOVEMENT The Granger Movement was begun in the late 1860s by farmers who called for government regulation of railroads and other industries whose prices and practices, they claimed, were monopolistic and unfair. Their efforts contrib- uted to a growing public sentiment against monopolies, w hich culminated in the passage of the Sherman Act (or SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT)of 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1–7. In 1867 the American farmer was in desperate straits. Needing better educational opportunities and protection from exorbitant prices charged by middlemen, the farmers decided to form an independent group to achieve their goals. Oliver Hudson Kelley, a former employee of the AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, organized a group called the Patrons of Husbandry. Membership was open to both men and women, and each local group was known as a Gra nge. Each Grange chose officers, and the goal of each meeting was to present news of educational value to the farmer. Kelley traveled across the country establish- ing Granges; he found his greatest support in Minnesota. The Granges soon evolved into the national Granger Movement. By 1873 all but four states had Granges. The main problems confronting the Granger Movement concerned corporate ownership of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRANGER MOVEMENT 137 . & Administration Communications Office ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 130 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE perusal. a “practical GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 129 printer versed in the art of bookbinding” (44 U.S.C.A. § 301). The GPO uses a variety of printing and binding. implies the existence of THEFT, corruption, FRAUD, and the lack of integrity that is expected in any transaction involving a public official. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GRAFT