When the number required by law concur in finding a true bill, the foreman must write on the back of the indictment, "A true bill," sign his name as foreman, and date the time of finding. On the contrary, where there is not sufficient evidence to authorize the find ing of the bill, the jury return that they are ignorant whether the person accused com mitted the offence charged in the bill, which is expressed by the foreman indorsing on the bill, "Ignoramus," "Not a true bill," or similar words, signing his name as before, and dating the indorsement. The grand jury cannot find a bill, true for part, and false for part ; 1 Russ. Cr., Sharsw. ed. 430.
A grand jury cannot indict without a previous prosecution before a magistrate ; except in offences of public notoriety, such as are within their own knowledge, or are given them in charge by the court, or are sent to them by the prosecuting officer of the commonwealth ; Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. § 338; McCullough v. Com., 67 Pa. 30.
As to the witnesses, and the power of the jury over them. The jury examine all the witnesses in support of the bill, or enough of them to satisfy themselves of the pro priety of putting the accused on trial, but none in favor of the accused. The jury are the sole judges of the credit and confidence to which a witness before them is entitled. It is decided that when a witness, duly sum moned, appears before the grand jury, but refuses to be sworn, and behaves in a dis respectful manner towards the jury, they may lawfully require the officer in attend ance upon them to take the witness before the court, in order to obtain its aid and di rection in the matter; Heard v. Pierce, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 338, 54 Am. Dec. 757; State v. Blocker, 14 Ala. 450. Such a refusal, it seems, is considered a contempt; State v. Blocker, 14 Ala. 450 ; the disobeaience of this order of the court constituting the contempt ; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; but the governor of a state is exempt from the powers of subpoena, and this immunity extends to his official subordinates ; Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. 433, 27 Am. Rep. 667. A person having knowledge of a crime has the right to go before the grand jury, and disclose his knowledge, without being sum moned ; State v. Stewart, 45 La. Ann. 1164, 14 South. 143.
As to the competency of evidence before grand jury see 28 L. R. A. 318, note ; and as to the sufficiency of evidence to sustain in dictment; 28 L. R. A. 324, note; as to im
proper influence or interference with a grand jury; 28 L. R. A. 367, note.
Of the secrecy to be observed. This ex tends to the vote given in any case, to the evidence delivered by witnesses, and to the communications of the jurors to each other. The disclosure of these facts, unless under the sanction of law, would render the im prudent juror who should make them public liable to punishment. Giving intelligence to a defendant that a bill has been found against him, to enable him to escape, is so obviously wrong that no one can for a mo ment doubt its being criminal. The grand juror who should be guilty of this .offence might, upon conviction, be fined and impris oned. One who stealthily listens to a grand jury while in the performance of their du ties commits the offence of eavesdropping ; State v. Pennington, 3 Head (Tenn.) 299, 75 Am. Dec. 771. The duration of the secrecy depends upon the particular circumstances of each case ; Tindle v. Nichols, 20 Mo. 3z6. In a case, for example, where a witness swears to a fact in open court, on the trial, directly in opposition to what he swore be fore the grand jury, there can be no doubt that the injunction of secrecy, as far as re gards this evidence, would be at an end, and the grand jurors might be sworn to testify what this witness swore to in the grand jury's room, in order that the witness might be prosecuted for perjury ; 3 Russ. Cr., Sharsw. ed. 520; Low's Case, 4 Me. 439, 16 Am. Dec. 271; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. 857; Corn. v. Scowden, 92 Ky. 120, 17 S. W. 205 ; Izer v. State, 77 Md. 110, 26 Atl. 282 ; Com. v. Hill, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 137. A member of the grand jury may testify as to how the jury acquired knowledge of an alleged offence; Com. v. Green, 126 Pa. 531, 17 Atl. 878, 12 Am. St. Rep. 894; Com. v. McComb, 157 Pa. 611, 27 Atl. 794 ; but see contra, Imlay v. Rogers, 7 N. J. Law 347; 1 C. & K. 519. It has been held that the foreman of a grand jury may be called as a witness concerning an admission of gaming made by defendant when testifying before the grand jury con cerning another offence, since the statute en joining secrecy as to proceedings before the grand jury is intended only for the protec tion of the jurors and of the public ; People v. Reggel, 8 Utah 21, 28 Pac. 955.