What must a grand jury consider when deciding on the admissibility of evidence?

A grand jury is tasked with determining whether sufficient evidence exists to formally charge someone with a crime. When considering the admissibility of evidence, the grand jury evaluates two main factors: relevance and legality.

Relevance refers to whether the evidence presented has a direct connection to the case and can help establish a fact that is material to the charges at hand. Legal considerations involve ensuring that the evidence is obtained in compliance with constitutional protections, such as the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In essence, the grand jury must assess not just whether the evidence can lead to a conviction but also whether it adheres to legal standards governing how evidence is obtained. This rigorous review helps protect individuals' rights while allowing the legal process to function effectively, serving as a check against potential abuse of power in prosecution.

The other options misrepresent the grand jury's role. Focusing solely on legally obtained evidence ignores that relevance also plays a critical role, while considering only evidence beneficial to the defendant overlooks the grand jury's primary function of investigating whether probable cause exists for prosecution. Additionally, the notion that testimonies must always be heard in public does not align with grand jury proceedings, which are typically conducted in secrecy to protect the identities of witnesses and the integrity of