THE GRAND JURY WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED AS A MEANS TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM UNFOUNDED CRIMINAL ACCUSATION, AS A BODY OF A PERSON'S PEERS WAS INTENDED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SEMBLANCE OF A TRIAL, GRAND JURY OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED IN SECRET WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF ANY JUDGE OR ATTORNEY FOR A POTENTIAL ACCUSED. ORIGINALLY, THE PROSECUTOR PLAYED A LIMITED ROLE IN PRESENTING CASES FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE GRAND JURORS. FEDERAL GRAND JURIES HAVE THE POWER TO COMPEL ANY PERSON, FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON, TO APPEAR IMMEDIATELY BEFORE A GRAND JURY SITTING ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. IN THEORY, THE GRAND JURY'S POWER TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND THE GIVING OF EVIDENCE IS A COROLLARY OF THE DUTY OF AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' PANEL TO GUARD AGAINST POLITICAL ABUSES OF POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ACCUSE. HISTORICALLY, THE ABILITY OF GRAND JURIES TO FULFILL THEIR PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS HAS DEPENDED UPON THE DEGREE TO WHICH THOSE SITTING ON THE GRAND JURY COULD MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. IN RECENT YEARS, THIS HAS BECOME VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN MOST CASES. GRAND JURORS USUALLY HEAR EVIDENCE AGAINST A POTENTIAL ACCUSED AS PRESENTED BY INVESTIGATIVE AGENTS. THE PROSECUTOR THEN ARGUES FOR INDICTMENT AND LEAVES THE ROOM TO PERMIT THE GRAND JURORS TO DELIBERATE IN SECRET. THE DOMINATING PRESENCE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND THE UNCHALLENGED PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAS MADE THE GRAND JURY, CONTRARY TO ORIGINAL INTENTION, A TOOL OF POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT HAS BECOME A CONVENIENT WAY TO PREVENT, CONTROL, OR DESTROY MOVEMENTS WHICH THREATEN TO DISRUPT THE STATUS QUO. IN PROVIDING A CIVIL CONTEMPT MECHANISM FOR FORCING AN INDIVIDUAL TO CHOOSE BETWEEN INFORMING ON HIMSELF AND OTHERS OR GOING TO JAIL, THE GRAND JURY HAS BEEN USED AS A TOOL OF INQUISITION BY THE STATE. GRAND JURY PROCEDURES MUST BE REFORMED IF THEY ARE TO FULFILL THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. ONE IMPORTANT STEP WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE PROVISION FOR COERCED IMMUNITY. (RCB)