Before most people charged with a serious federal crime ever see a trial jury, a different group of citizens has already looked at the evidence against them. That group is the grand jury. On February 10, a Washington grand jury declined to indict Democratic lawmakers over a video urging service members to reject unlawful orders, according to a source familiar with the matter cited by WHYY. Grand juries rarely make news, partly because almost everything they do happens out of public view.
What a grand jury is for
A federal grand jury does not decide whether anyone is guilty. According to the federal judiciary, it "reviews evidence presented by the U.S. Attorney" and decides whether there is enough to make a defendant face trial. If the jurors find probable cause, they return an indictment, the formal charging document.
Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a grand jury has 16 to 23 members, and at least 12 must agree before it can indict. The U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas notes that its grand juries are made up of 23 jurors. A grand jury can serve up to 18 months, and a court may extend that by six months if it finds an extension is in the public interest. When 12 jurors do not agree, the result is known as a no bill.
The room looks nothing like a trial. Only prosecutors, the witness being questioned, an interpreter if needed and a court reporter may be present while the grand jury is in session. No judge sits on the bench, and the person under investigation has no lawyer arguing inside. When jurors deliberate and vote, everyone else leaves.
Grand juries are a federal requirement but not a state one. In Hurtado v. California in 1884, the Supreme Court held that a state could bring a murder charge without a grand jury, using a document called an information after a judge reviewed the charge. In states that charge this way, the evidence can be tested at a public preliminary hearing like the one in the Charlie Kirk case.
Why the secrecy
Rule 6 requires that "all proceedings must be recorded," but it bars grand jurors, prosecutors, court reporters and interpreters from disclosing what happens. Witnesses are the notable exception. The rule places no secrecy obligation on them, so they are free to talk about their own testimony.
Courts have long explained why. As the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press summarizes, secrecy keeps people under investigation from fleeing or tampering with jurors and witnesses, encourages witnesses to speak frankly, protects the reputations of people who are investigated but never charged, and lets jurors deliberate without pressure. The Supreme Court observed in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest that "since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public."
Secrecy has a cost, too. It can hide mistakes. A court can order grand jury material released, but only when the party asking shows the need for disclosure outweighs the need for continued secrecy.
When the curtain is pulled back
That is what happened in Chicago this year. Six activists, local officials and candidates, known as the Broadview Six, were charged over a September 2025 protest outside an immigration facility in Broadview, Illinois. Transcripts made public on June 9, after U.S. District Judge April Perry approved their release, showed that grand jurors first declined to indict on October 9, 2025.
A week later, the prosecutor presented the case again. One juror called it "a crock" in cruder terms and was dismissed. The prosecutor later acknowledged speaking with two jurors outside the grand jury room, which she said she was "not supposed to do."
In May, Perry canceled the trial, describing the prosecutor's opening statement as improper vouching and rebuking prosecutors for misconduct. U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros took responsibility for his deputies' misconduct and moved to drop the remaining charges. He also defended his office's record and called the defendants' alleged conduct "unacceptable."
The Chicago case shows both sides of the system. A grand jury can say no, prosecutors can try again, and the rules about how they try still apply. It is the kind of case Daniel Rosenberg, Michael Dye and Lloyd Golburgh take apart on the show.
This article is general information about how the legal system works and is not legal advice.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
