The Washington grand jury which has been hearing the testimony of Ms Monica Lewinsky and will hear that of President Clinton is unlike any jury under the Irish or British legal system, writes Joe Carroll. Its job is to decide whether individuals should be indicted for serious crimes but not to find them guilty or not guilty.
There is not even a judge presiding. Witnesses are first questioned by the independent counsel, Mr Ken Starr, or his staff. Then the jurors can ask questions. The proceedings are secret and the press may not be present.
The witnesses cannot have their lawyers in the bare and shabby room, but can leave it to consult them before answering a question. The present jury consists of 23 Washington residents chosen randomly. It is said to be mostly female, middle-aged or older, and heavily African-American.
The US Constitution lays down that no one can be tried for a serious crime unless first indicted by a grand jury. The 18th-century framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that accused persons could not be imprisoned at the whim of those in power, as in pre-revolutionary Europe. The US grand jury system derives from an ancient British model long since abolished.
Today, grand juries in the US are a rather discredited institution and seen as rubber-stamps for prosecutors seeking indictments. There is a standard joke that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.
Mr Starr is using the grand jury powers of subpoena to obtain sworn testimony from scores of witnesses as part of a report he is expected to send to Congress covering the Whitewater inquiry and the Lewinsky aspect.