Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/125

IMPROVEMENT IN CRIMINAL PLEADING, 99 offences they are especially so. In cases arising from alleged vio- lation of election laws, and from words and writings in the course of political campaigns, the grand jury stands as a safeguard from excess of zeal or lack of proper attention on the part of prosecuting officers. It relieves them from pressure which, brought to bear in the heat of party excitement, is hard to withstand. It is an inde- pendent body, responsible to no one, yet bound by rules of law furnished by the courts ; so that if there should be any inclination to act illegally, which very rarely happens, such inclination is held in check. As it is not practicable or safe to bring influence to bear on the members of this body, the attempt is seldom made. The members are selected from the different towns and cities in the county. They have peculiar knowledge of local needs, and as occasion requires they present public corporate bodies, as well as others, for failure to perform their duties, — such as neglect to repair ways, provide schoolhouses, and the Hke. They visit public institutions, and give valuable suggestions at times when no formal presentment is made. Good results are reached in this quiet and effective way. It is an ancient institution, which has proved its value by centu- ries of satisfactory work. It should not be set aside without good reason. Danger may well be apprehended if the power to institute public prosecutions be given to one person. The first trouble of consequence occurs in drawing the indict- ment. This should be plain and simple in its terms; but fre- quently it is not. The timidity of the pleader, the requirements of pleading at common law, and Article XII. of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Massachusetts, are the chief obstacles, actual and seeming, in the way of improvement. The pleader is fearful lest, in departing from time-honored forms, he may put the prosecution in peril of failure. He is loth to con- struct new forms, and therefore adheres to the antiquated prece- dent. As in ancient days the test was whether the case could be brought to fit the writ, so now the inquiry many times is whether the case fits the form of indictment. The pleading is highly tech- nical. It is confused by the variety of forms adopted and rigidly adhered to. These are far from uniform. We have a collection of precedents adjudged sufficient in form, some of which are plain to any one, and others involved and wellnigh unintelligible, except to those specially trained in the subject. The latter forms are our