· Read each of the scenarios
· Discuss with your partner and determine if you think the grand jury would say there is enough evidence to indict (charge them with the crime and put them on trial) the defendant or not and then write a brief explanation for your reasoning.
· Affix this sheet on an even side in your notebook when you are finished.
Remember, a grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence – it determines if there is enough evidence that a person should be put on trial. Please know that when a case goes to trial, additional evidence can be presented by both sides as not all information may be found at the time of the grand jury hearing.
Scenario 1
The prosecution says that Mr. Biggles should be charged and put on trial for bank robbery. $500,000 was stolen from the Liberty State Bank. They have a surveillance camera’s video footage of Mr. Biggles leaving the bank moments after the robbery, the police found empty money bags in the trunk of Mr. Biggles’ car, and there was a $450,000 deposit into his bank account. Police have learned that Mr. Biggles is also driving a new car which he purchased just after the date of the bank robbery.
Is there enough evidence to charge Mr. Biggles with robbery and send him to court to defend himself? Why or why not?
Scenario 2
A woman, Jane Doe, was found in a dumpster behind a café. Police learn that Jane once worked for the same café but was fired after she complained of unfair treatment and threatened to report the owner, Molly Brown to the Health Department.
Is there enough evidence to indict Molly Brown for the death of Jane Doe? Why or why not?
Scenario 3
The prosecution says that Jack has a large beanstalk growing in his back yard. After legally searching Jack’s house, they also found a self-playing harp and two small beans in a desk drawer. The Giant from the next town has filed a complaint of theft with the local police. The harp is valued at $1 million dollars and the beans $25,000 a piece.
Is there enough evidence to indict Jack for breaking and entering and the theft of the Giant’s goods? Why or why not?
What Would a Grand Jury Do?· Read each of the scenarios
· Discuss with your partner and determine if you think the grand jury would say there is enough evidence to indict (charge them with the crime and put them on trial) the defendant or not and then write a brief explanation for your reasoning.
· Affix this sheet on an even side in your notebook when you are finished.
Remember, a grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence – it determines if there is enough evidence that a person should be put on trial. Please know that when a case goes to trial, additional evidence can be presented by both sides as not all information may be found at the time of the grand jury hearing.
Scenario 1
The prosecution says that Mr. Biggles should be charged and put on trial for bank robbery. $500,000 was stolen from the Liberty State Bank. They have a surveillance camera’s video footage of Mr. Biggles leaving the bank moments after the robbery, the police found empty money bags in the trunk of Mr. Biggles’ car, and there was a $450,000 deposit into his bank account. Police have learned that Mr. Biggles is also driving a new car which he purchased just after the date of the bank robbery.
Is there enough evidence to charge Mr. Biggles with robbery and send him to court to defend himself? Why or why not?
Scenario 2
A woman, Jane Doe, was found in a dumpster behind a café. Police learn that Jane once worked for the same café but was fired after she complained of unfair treatment and threatened to report the owner, Molly Brown to the Health Department.
Is there enough evidence to indict Molly Brown for the death of Jane Doe? Why or why not?
Scenario 3
The prosecution says that Jack has a large beanstalk growing in his back yard. After legally searching Jack’s house, they also found a self-playing harp and two small beans in a desk drawer. The Giant from the next town has filed a complaint of theft with the local police. The harp is valued at $1 million dollars and the beans $25,000 a piece.
Is there enough evidence to indict Jack for breaking and entering and the theft of the Giant’s goods? Why or why not?