Variations and implications of grand jury secrecy rules across the U.S.
A recent article in the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Magazine sheds light on how grand jury secrecy rules vary across jurisdictions and what those differences mean for criminal defendants and their attorneys.
Authors John Robert Schleppenbach and Andrew S. Boutros explore the historical roots of grand jury secrecy, tracing back to 17th century England, and its codification in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which broadly prohibits disclosure of proceedings, testimony, and other related information, with limited exceptions.
The article emphasizes that while the federal rule applies to government attorneys, grand jurors, and court personnel, it does not prohibit witnesses themselves from discussing their testimony. However, several states; including Alabama, Nevada, and South Dakota, have more restrictive laws that extend secrecy obligations to witnesses. On the other end of the spectrum, states like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and New York explicitly allow witnesses to disclose their own testimony.
Importantly, the authors catalog other major jurisdictional differences. Some states limit secrecy to deliberations and votes, while others, like Alabama and Michigan, extend secrecy to broader categories such as questions posed to witnesses or the form and content of physical evidence. Remedies for violations include contempt proceedings, suppression of evidence, and, in extreme cases, dismissal of an indictment, although the latter typically requires a showing of prejudice.
This in-depth analysis highlights the differences between state grand jury procedures.
Tribal courts and jury fairness: A response to concerns about nonmember rights
A recent Harvard Law Review case study (Vol. 138, p. 1689) offers a detailed analysis of Lexington Insurance Co. v. Smith, a case concerning tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers. While the primary legal issue was the authority of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to hear a civil dispute involving a nonmember, the article touches on concerns relevant to jury service and fairness in tribal courts.
In dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit raised alarm over nonmembers in sovereign Native America territories potentially facing an “all-tribe-member jury” without the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The case review challenges this view, explaining that modern tribal courts have adopted increasingly robust procedural protections, and many draw from jury pools that include both tribal and non-tribal residents. Some tribes also follow similar due process principles as state and federal courts, ensuring impartiality and fairness.
The Harvard Law Review highlights how assumptions about tribal legal systems can overshadow the professionalization and due process reforms taking place in Native American territories.
South Carolina jury shortages reflect a national call to action
Recent reports from South Carolina highlight a growing concern across the nation: not enough people are responding to jury duty summons. In Chesterfield County, several trials were delayed when too few jurors appeared, with officials pointing to outdated addresses and general reluctance as key barriers. Similar challenges have been reported in Greenville County and elsewhere, where efforts are now underway to educate the public and increase participation.
This mirrors broader trends tracked by NCSC and the Center for Jury Studies, whose research shows rising failure-to-appear rates in jurisdictions across the country. Projects like Why Won’t They Come? in Harris County, Texas, and NCSC’s Future of Juries and Jury Trials report have identified declining civic engagement, logistical hurdles, and limited awareness about jury service as contributors to the problem.
Courts nationwide are responding with solutions: updating jury rolls, offering online tools to make responding easier, and expanding public education campaigns. Notably, New York launched a jury service PSA series and joined a webinar with NCSC and Sandstorm Design to highlight effective engagement strategies.
As jury participation wanes, courts are emphasizing that juror service is both a civic responsibility and a constitutional safeguard. These reform efforts aim to preserve the viability of jury trials and ensure that the justice system remains accessible, fair, and representative of the community.
Florida Supreme Court seeks prosecutor member for criminal jury instructions committee
The Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases is currently accepting applications for membership, with one open position available this year. The committee is specifically seeking a candidate that is a Florida attorney and works for the prosecution.
This important committee is responsible for reviewing and updating Florida’s criminal jury instructions, including those used in Jimmy Ryce cases. Members typically meet about four times annually, with meetings generally held in the Central Florida area. All appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.
Interested applicants must submit their applications by May 23, 2025. Those who have applied previously but remain interested are encouraged to reapply.
The application form and additional information can be found on The Florida Bar’s website.