Grand jurors are held competent witnesses as to matters disclosed to them in the course of their duty as such ; U. S. v. Charles, 2 Cra. C. C. 76, Fed. Cas. No. 14,786; Gordon v. Com., 92 Pa. 220, 37 Am. Rep. 672; to im peach a witness who testified differently be fore the grand jury ; Com. v. Mead, 12 Gray (Mass.) 1tii, 71 Am. Dec. 741.
The minutes of what took place before the grand jury may be disclosed but not to show that the indictment was found upon insuffi cient evidence or no evidence, as that ques tion is not open to review ; Beavers v. Hen kel, 194 U. S. 76, 24 Sup. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882.
A grand jury may without hearing wit nesses return a second indictment against a person for the same offence charged in the first one for the purpose of correcting a for mal description ; Nordlinger v. U. 'S., 24 App. D. C. 406, 70 L. R. A. 227; Byers v. State, 63 Md. 207; Whiting v. State, 48 Ohio St. 220, 27 N. E. 96; Creek v. State, 24 Ind. 151.
Self-incriminating statements before a grand jury were admitted at the trial; Wis dom v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 579„61 S. W. 926; but this decision was based on the ground that a grand juror might testify to them without violating his secrets, which is said to be apparently well settled but not conclusive of the issue in that ease; 15 Harv. L. Rev. 308.
A grand juror may be punished for con tempt for disclosing testimony produced be fore it; In re Atwell, 140 Fed. 368 ; In re Summerhayes, 70 Fed. 769.
A grand juror is not competent to testify in a civil case as to the statements of a wit ness before the grand jury ; Loveland v. Cooley, 59 Minn. 259, 61 N. W. 138. It is not error to reject evidence of grand jurors closing testimony given before the grand jury ; Kennedy v. Holladay, 105 Mo. 24, 16 S. W. 688. Statements of the prosecuting officer as to what occurred•in the grand jury room are inaumissible ; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 463. The fact that a ste nographer, at the request of the prosecuting attorney, attended before the grand jury and took the testimony of the witnesses, is, upon the weight of authority, no ground for quashing the indictment; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. App. 356, 32 N. E. 335 ; State v. Bates, 148 Ind. 610, 48 N. E. 2;, State v. Brewster, 70 Vt. 341, 40 Atl. 1037, 42 L. R. A. 444; U. S. v. Simmons, 46 Fed. 65; contra, State v. Bowman, 90 Me. 363, 38 Atl. 331, 60 Am. St. Rep. 266 ; the presence of the state's at torney while inquiry is being made by the grand jury is not objectionable; Shoop v. People, 45 III. App. 110; but the presence of a private prosecutor is ground for reversal of a judgment of conviction; Wilson v. State, 70 Miss. 595, 13 South. 225, 35 Am. St. Rep. 664.
The grand jury can be discharged only by order of the court or the final adjournment of .the term ; Jones v. U. S., 162 Fed. 417, 89
C. C. A. 303. In the absence of an order of the court the grand jury may meet and ad journ while in existence whether the court is in session or not; id. Neither the im proper discharge of a grand juror nor the absence of one or more will invalidate an indictment if the number required to find one are present ; id. The provisions of the grand jurors' oath_ to make diligent inquiry and presentment, not to present for envy, hatred or malice, and to leave no one unpresented for fear, favor or affection are mandatory, but the requirement to keep the nation's counsel,' his fellows' and his own secret is not so; Atwell v. U. S., 162 Fed. 97, 89 C. C. A. 97, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1049, 15 Ann. Cas. 253. If after the presentment an indictment has been found and made public and the ac cused has been apprehended and the grand jury finally discharged, the grand jurors are . no longer bound to keep their proceedings secret ; Atwell v. U. S., 162 Fed. 97, 89 C. C. A. 97, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1049, 15 Ann. Cas. 253; reversing In re Atwell, 140 Fed. 368.
The privilege given by the fifth amend ment to the constitution, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal ease to be a witness against himself, extends to a pro ceeding before a grand jury ; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 12 Sup. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110.
That provision has no application to crim inal procedure in the Cherokee Nation whose powers of self-government antedated the con stitution; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, 16 Sup. Ct. 986, 41 L. Ed. 196.
The fifth amendment is satisfied by one inquiry and adjudication, and an indictment found by the proper grand jury should be accepted anywhere within the United States as at least prima facie evidence of probable cause and sufficient basis for removal from the district where the person arrested is found to the district where the indictment was found; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. Ct. 605, 4i3 L. Ed. 882.
The place where such inquiry must be had, and the decision of the grand jury obtained, is the locality in which by the constitution and laws the final trial must be had ; Bea vers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882.
The disqualification of grand jurors does not destroy jurisdiction if it otherwise ex ists and an indictment though voidable is not void, and objections taken seasonably in the trial must be corrected by writ of error and not habeas corpus ; Keizo v. Henry, 211 U. S. 146, 29 Sup. Ct. 41, 53 L. Ed. 125.
See INDICTMENT; PRESENTMENT ; CHARGE ; INFORMATION ; INCRIMINATION.