Can a grand jury create a precedent?

[Hnv1]

So I have this question (see title), it's been too long since I did a course on American Law as comparative law so I couldn't remember. I know there is jury nullification but that is regarding a jury making a statute void. so if a grand jury acquits X on grounds that would have been a precedent if ruled by a judge is it a precedent?

sorry, I'm a bit out of my stretch with all those weird common law procedures and the confusion of common law criminal law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really. As far as I know, the reason why a jury reaches the verdict they do isn't included in the official record. Certainly it never has been asked of any jury I've been on. So there was nothing to base a precedent on.

[politicus]

Not really. As far as I know, the reason why a jury reaches the verdict they do isn't included in the official record. Certainly it never has been asked of any jury I've been on. So there was nothing to base a precedent on.

You've been on multiple juries? Why? I thought they were randomly selected from a large pool of citizens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really. As far as I know, the reason why a jury reaches the verdict they do isn't included in the official record. Certainly it never has been asked of any jury I've been on. So there was nothing to base a precedent on.

You've been on multiple juries? Why? I thought they were randomly selected from a large pool of citizens.

Juries aren't just for big felony cases.  I've not been on a Federal jury so far, but I've been called on for other jury pools four times in little over three decades, Twice for municipal courts, once for county magistrate, and once for (state) circuit court.  None of the cases I actually got placed on a jury from the pool lasted more than a day.  Technically, I'm in a Federal jury pool right now, but I've only gotten to the first stage of the court wanting me to send in my current contact info and making certain that I was eligible if I got called for an actual assembled pool, and the year of that term of being available to be called is almost up without my having been called, so I'm not counting that.

Nothing exciting happened in the juries I've been on.  Three traffic cases in which I helped render a verdict two civil cases that got settled before we could render a verdict and once even before we got to hear any testimony.  I fully expect to be on a couple more juries before reaching age 65, at which point I'd be able to get excused without having a reason if I wished.

[Dereich]

Juries interpret the facts in dispute while judges rule on the law. If a jury chooses to nullify, the court would treat it as a judgement on the facts of the case, not the underlying law.

So no, a jury can't set a common law precedent.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So I have this question (see title), it's been too long since I did a course on American Law as comparative law so I couldn't remember. I know there is jury nullification but that is regarding a jury making a statute void. so if a grand jury acquits X on grounds that would have been a precedent if ruled by a judge is it a precedent?

sorry, I'm a bit out of my stretch with all those weird common law procedures and the confusion of common law criminal law.

     A rather auxiliary detail, but grand juries don't acquit or convict. They decide whether to indict. If they indict the accused, then the matter proceeds to a trial jury, where the trial proper will happen. The standard for indictment is related to a possability of attaining a guilty verdict at trial.

[Hnv1]

So I have this question (see title), it's been too long since I did a course on American Law as comparative law so I couldn't remember. I know there is jury nullification but that is regarding a jury making a statute void. so if a grand jury acquits X on grounds that would have been a precedent if ruled by a judge is it a precedent?

sorry, I'm a bit out of my stretch with all those weird common law procedures and the confusion of common law criminal law.

     A rather auxiliary detail, but grand juries don't acquit or convict. They decide whether to indict. If they indict the accused, then the matter proceeds to a trial jury, where the trial proper will happen. The standard for indictment is related to a possability of attaining a guilty verdict at trial.

Ah yes I forgot about the difference. Still seems odd to a civil law taught (well mostly) person like me that indictment is a court process of its own. but thank you for the clarification.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Though I could see a grand jury doing nullification it'd obviously happen a lot less frequently than standard jury nullification since the type of crimes people like to nullify usually don't go before a grand jury. I imagine it'd happen more if the evidence indicates against the person in the way the law is literally read, but their actual role or responsibility isn't as large as the charges imply, an example might be a low level underling in a drug enterprise (like a bookkeeper) being charged the same way the top people are. However a grand jury doesn't need to give a reason to decline to indict, so precedent would be hard to extract from it. Grand jury nullification would just go down as officially that the prosecution failed to make a good enough case for an indictment.