California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Johnson v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.Rptr. 32, 15 Cal.3d 248, 539 P.2d 792 (Cal. 1975):
12 People v. Uhlemann (1973) supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 108 Cal.Rptr. 657, 511 P.2d 609, is illustrative of the advantage. At the preliminary hearing the defendant, through counsel, was able to discredit the prosecution witnesses as he confronted them. The experienced magistrate refused to hold the defendant for trial. Undaunted, the prosecutor went forum shopping and took the case before the grand jury, where, such matters being uncontested, it was readily predictable that an indictment would be returned. It was.
13 It may be argued, for example, that in certain cases there is an overwhelming need for the secrecy which can be obtained only through the grand jury, either for the protection of witnesses or, in rare instances, for the protection of the defendant himself. (See People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121.) However, once an indictment is returned these considerations can no longer be considered operative, because whatever secrecy was achieved through the grand jury will be forsaken when the defendant is brought to trial. Thus there would appear to be no reason, postindictment, why the defendant could not be accorded a preliminary hearing.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.