THERE IS CONSIDERABLE VARIATION FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION BOTH IN THE ROLE OF GRAND JURIES IN THE CHARGING PROCESS AND IN THE LAW GOVERNING SUCH MATTERS AS NUMBER OF JURORS, METHOD OF CONVENING, RECORDING OF TESTIMONY, RIGHTS OF WITNESSES, AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS. ONLY 20 STATES, PLUS THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, REQUIRE A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SERIOUS CRIMES. FIVE ADDITIONAL STATES REQUIRE INDICTMENTS FOR CAPITAL CRIMES ONLY. IN OTHER STATES, THE FORMAL CRIMINAL CHARGE MAY TAKE THE FORM OF EITHER AN INDICTMENT OR AN INFORMATION PREPARED BY THE PROSECUTOR AFTER A PRELIMINARY HEARING. THE OPTIONAL APPROACH APPEARS TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS IN THAT IT ALLOWS THE STATE FLEXIBILITY IN SELECTING CHARGING PROCEDURES TO ACCOMODATE SUCH DEMANDS AS WITNESS CONVENIENCE, SPEED, AND EFFICIENCY. MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE GRAND JURY'S INDICTMENT ROLE IS ITS POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS. THIS POWER, PARTICULARLY WHEN USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S PREROGATIVE TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO WITNESSES SO THAT THEY MAY BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY, MAKES THE GRAND JURY A VITAL INVESTIGATIVE TOOL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. PROTESTS AGAINST ABUSES OF THE INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF GRAND JURIES AND PROSECUTORS, PARTICULARLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, HAVE BROUGHT REFORM EFFORTS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS AND BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. ONE POINT ARGUING STRONGLY FOR RETENTION OF GRAND JURIES IS THAT THEY PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AND TO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS. IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE GRAND JURY IS A DESIRABLE INSTITUTION IN NEED OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. (LKM)