A good framing is: grand juries can be viewed as a second set of eyes on the evidence, particularly as a check on the prosecutor’s charging decision.
- Core answer: They function as a review body that screens evidence and decides whether there is enough basis to indict, effectively acting as an independent check before a case proceeds to trial.
If you want a more precise multiple-choice style mapping, the common correct characterization among discussions is:
- A second set of eyes to review the value of evidence collected by prosecutors.
If you’d like, I can tailor this to a particular jurisdiction or provide brief pros and cons of this perspective.
