THE HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES IS TRACED, AND THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE MODERN GRAND JURY--INDICTMENT AND INVESTIGATION--ARE NOTED. THE PROSECUTOR'S FUNCTIONS PRIOR TO AND DURING CONVENING OF THE GRAND JURY IN ITS INDICTMENT CAPACITY ARE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, WITH REFERENCE TO STANDARDS DEVELOPED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. THESE FUNCTIONS RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING: THE SELECTION OF JURORS; THE CHARGING DECISION (SCREENING, DIVERSION, IMMUNITY, PREPARATION OF THE INDICTMENT); PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE TO THE JURY (INITIAL BRIEFING OF JURORS, EXPLANATION OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EVIDENCE); PROCUREMENT OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES (INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANCE, SUBPOENA OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, IMMUNITY DECISIONS); SPECIAL PRESENTMENTS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS; ADVOCACY FOR THE GRAND JURY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS (E.G., ENFORCEMENT OF GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND OF THE JURY'S POWER TO FORCE TESTIMONY FROM IMMUNIZED WITNESSES); USE OF THE GRAND JURY'S DISCRETIONARY POWER TO SCREEN PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE CASES; PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND ASSURANCE OF ITS QUALITY; AND OVERSIGHT OF PROCEDURES USED TO REPORT GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS. THE PRO'S AND CON'S OF VARIOUS CRITICISMS OF THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM ARE WEIGHTED, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS: THE GRAND JURY IS THE PROSECUTOR'S RUBBER STAMP; THE GRAND JURY'S DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS NEEDLESS, TIME CONSUMING, AND INEFFICIENT; THE GRAND JURY IS A SOURCE OF INJUSTICE; THE DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENT DURING GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS; AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO ADVISE ALL GRAND JURY AND WITNESSES REGARDING THEIR TESTIMONY. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS PROVIDED. (LKM)