What are the legal standards and evidentiary thresholds for indictments in federal grand juries versus state grand juries?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal grand juries decide indictments on the probable-cause standard and by Rule 6 require 16–23 members with at least 12 concurring votes to return an indictment [1] [2]. States vary: the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury requirement applies to federal felonies but not to the states, and many states may proceed by information or have different grand-jury rules or no grand jury at all [3] [4].
1. What the federal rules actually require: size, quorum and probable cause
Federal grand juries are governed by Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: a grand jury must be composed of 16–23 members, and the record must show that at least 12 qualified jurors concurred in an indictment [1] [5]. The grand jury’s legal gatekeeping function is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a federal offense has been committed — a far lower threshold than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used at trial [6] [7].
2. Procedural posture and discretion: secrecy, prosecutor control, and sources of evidence
Federal grand juries operate largely in secret and are led by government attorneys who present evidence, question witnesses, and shape the inquiry; the Justice Manual frames the grand jury as determining probable cause based on prosecutor-presented material [7] [6]. Rule 6 and DOJ guidance permit disclosure of grand-jury matters in narrow circumstances but otherwise protect secrecy, and courts have long acknowledged that grand juries are primarily the prosecutor’s instrument [2] [7].
3. Privileges, witness rights and limits inside the federal grand jury
Federal evidentiary privileges govern grand-jury subpoenas under federal common-law principles and the Federal Rules of Evidence; the grand jury may not itself nullify a valid privilege, and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination plays out differently at the grand-jury stage than at trial [8] [9]. The CRS explains that although a witness can invoke the Fifth, the grand jury’s subpoena power and the “act of production” doctrine create nuanced limits on document production and testimonial privilege [8] [9].
4. The state-level counterpoint: huge variation and constitutional limits
States do not all follow federal practice. The Fifth Amendment’s indictment clause requires federal grand juries in federal felony cases but does not compel states to use grand juries; many states allow prosecution to begin by information or complaint, and domestic practice and procedures vary widely [3] [4]. Where states do use grand juries, rules on size, voting, secrecy, and prosecutor participation differ from federal Rule 6 and among themselves [10].
5. Standards of proof compared: probable cause vs. beyond a reasonable doubt
Both federal and many state grand juries use the probable-cause standard to decide whether an indictment should issue; that standard simply asks whether the presented evidence would reasonably warrant a belief that a crime occurred — not whether the evidence would sustain a conviction at trial [6] [9]. The practical consequence is that indictments are intentionally easier to obtain than convictions, which helps explain the near-ubiquity of true bills when prosecutors present cases [10].
6. Institutional critiques and differing perspectives
Commentators and legal scholars stress two competing realities: defenders of the grand jury say it is a critical community check and an investigatory engine; critics point to its secrecy and the prosecutor’s control as enabling near-automatic indictments — the familiar “indict a ham sandwich” criticism appears in academic and public debate [10] [9]. The CRS and DOJ materials document concerns about prosecutorial influence and note periodic calls for reform, while also recognizing the longstanding constitutional and procedural role of the federal grand jury [9] [7].
7. What these differences mean in practice for defendants and the public
In federal cases defendants receive the constitutional right to a grand-jury indictment for serious crimes, with Rule 6’s formal structure and DOJ practice governing evidence and secrecy [1] [7]. In many state systems, however, available sources do not mention a single uniform standard — states may rely on grand juries, preliminary hearings, or informations, and statutory and procedural variance materially affects how charges proceed and how much judicial oversight occurs [4] [3].
Limitations and sourcing note: This analysis relies only on the supplied materials, chiefly the CRS reports, Rule 6 texts, DOJ Justice Manual, and commentary cited above; state-by-state specifics are not exhaustively detailed in those sources and therefore “not found in current reporting” here [9] [2] [7].