OFTEN PROSECUTORS UNDERTAKE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT ADVISING OR EVEN CONSULTING THE JURORS. FOR INSTANCE, JURORS MAY NOT KNOW THAT THEY, NOT JUST THE PROSECUTORS, HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL AND INTERROGATE WITNESSES AND TO SECURE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE. TO MAKE RATIONAL AND INDEPENDENT DECISIONS, GRAND JURORS MUST BE FULLY INFORMED OF THEIR DUTIES AND RIGHTS. H.R. 94 REQUIRES THAT JURORS BE SO INFORMED. ONE COMMON COMPLAINT ABOUT THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S ABILITY TO IMMUNIZE ANY GRAND JURY WITNESS WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND WITH THE LIMITED PROTECTIONS AFFORDED WITNESSES WHO ARE GRANTED SUCH IMMUNITY. H.R. 94 ENSURES THAT THE COURTS REVIEW IMMUNITY GRANTS AND PROTECTS THE IMMUNIZED WITNESS FROM PROSECUTION FOR ANY TRANSACTION MENTIONED DURING TESTIMONY UNDER A GRANT OF IMMUNITY, NOT JUST FROM THE USE OF SUCH TESTIMONY IN A SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION. GRAND JURIES POSSESS CONTEMPT POWER, WHICH ENABLES THEM TO COMPEL TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES. SOME PROSECUTORS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF CALLING POLITICAL DISSIDENTS AS GRAND JURY WITNESSES TO UNCOVER INFORMATION UNRELATED TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND TO PUNISH SUCH INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY EXPOSING THEM TO CONTEMPT CHARGES IF THEY REFUSE TO TESTIFY. A RECALCITRANT WITNESS MAY BE CONFINED FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD. SUCH CONFINEMENT, THOUGH SUPPOSEDLY COERCIVE, OFTEN IS PUNITIVE. H.R. 94 LIMITS THE MAXIMUM TERM OF CONFINEMENT FOR CONTEMPT TO 6 MONTHS AND PROHIBITS REPEATED CONFINEMENTS FOR REFUSAL TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE SAME TRANSACTION OR EVENT. ANOTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT GRAND JURIES HAS TO DO WITH PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, 'TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER'. H.R. 94 REVITALIZES THE PROTECTIVE FUNCTION OF GRAND JURY SECRECY BY MAKING A LEAK A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. H.R. 94 ALSO PROVIDES THE POTENTIAL DEFENDANT BROUGHT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WITH CERTAIN PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA REGARDLESS OF THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED. (LKM)