What states don’t use grand juries? A clear 2026 explainer

What the Fifth Amendment says about grand juries

Text of the Fifth Amendment in brief

The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury for federal felony indictments, and that rule is part of the constitutional text governing federal prosecutions. For a clear explanation of the federal requirement and how it functions today, see the U.S. Courts educational overview for the Fifth Amendment and the grand jury, which summarizes the role of grand juries in federal practice U.S. Courts guide to the Fifth Amendment and the grand jury.

At the same time, the constitutional rule for federal prosecutions does not automatically dictate how states must charge felony offenses. That separation matters for readers who assume the federal practice applies everywhere.

Federal requirement vs state practice

Because the Fifth Amendment governs federal charging, states have latitude to adopt different procedures. The Supreme Court has long recognized a divide between federal constitutional requirements and state criminal procedure choices. For background reading on contemporary debate, see a recent discussion at SCOTUSblog.

One result is that many states set their own rules about whether to use grand juries, preliminary hearings, or prosecutor-filed informations when bringing felony charges.

How Hurtado v. California changed state requirements

Case background and holding

The Supreme Court decision Hurtado v. California held that the constitutional requirement for a grand jury in federal prosecutions does not bind the states in the same way, allowing states to design alternative charging systems. The primary source for the opinion is the Supreme Court’s published decision in Hurtado v. California, which explains the Court’s reasoning and holding Hurtado v. California.

In practice, Hurtado established a narrow legal principle: the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury clause applies in the federal system but does not automatically impose an identical procedural rule on state criminal processes.

Practical effect on state charging options

As a practical matter, Hurtado permitted states to rely on other formal mechanisms, most commonly informations filed by prosecutors or judicial preliminary hearings, instead of routine grand-jury indictments.

That flexibility explains why state systems today show substantial variation in who controls the initial charging decision and how the decision is reviewed.

How states actually charge felonies today

Overview of the main charging mechanisms

States use three principal methods to begin a felony prosecution: a grand-jury indictment, an information filed by a prosecutor, or a preliminary probable-cause hearing before a judge. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell provides a concise explanation of the grand jury and how it fits among these options LII summary of grand juries.

Across states, practice ranges from routine grand-jury use to systems that almost always start with an information or a judicial probable-cause hearing.

When a state does not mandate grand juries, the prosecutor may file an information to charge a felony directly, often followed by a preliminary hearing to test probable cause before a judicial officer.

Variation across states

Some states keep grand juries in their statutes but use them mainly for exceptional cases. Other states have statutory schemes that favor informations and hearings as the usual path for felony charging. Neutral state summaries and legislative descriptions help map these differences (see state summaries such as ACLU of Ohio’s FAQ).

Because the details differ by jurisdiction, reporters and researchers should avoid assuming national uniformity when discussing how a state charges felonies. For guidance on source material, see our constitutional rights hub.

Common alternatives: informations and preliminary hearings

What an information is

An information is a formal charging document filed by a prosecutor that alleges criminal conduct and initiates prosecution without a grand-jury indictment. Legal guides describe the information as a common prosecutorial tool in many states and note its distinction from an indictment.

Where informations are standard, a prosecutor typically files charges directly after an investigation or arrest, and the case then proceeds to arraignment and pretrial stages.

What a preliminary probable-cause hearing is

A preliminary probable-cause hearing is a court proceeding where a judge hears limited evidence and determines whether there is sufficient cause to hold a suspect for trial. Unlike a grand jury, the hearing is adversarial: defense counsel may cross-examine witnesses and the judge makes the probable-cause finding.

Preliminary hearings can serve as a check on charging decisions while preserving a public record and offering an early testing of evidence.

How each process compares with a grand jury

Compared with grand juries, informations and preliminary hearings shift initial decisionmaking toward a public, judge-led or prosecutor-led process. Grand juries operate in private and rely on a panel of citizens to return indictments, while preliminary hearings and informations involve more direct judicial review or prosecutorial initiation.

Each method has tradeoffs in terms of secrecy, adversarial testing, and prosecutorial control.

Which states do not use grand juries for routine felony charging

States that primarily rely on informations or hearings

Multiple states now favor informations or preliminary hearings for routine felony charging rather than relying on grand-jury indictments. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides an overview of grand-jury practices and the variations among state systems NCSL overview of grand-jury practice.

That means a simple statement such as which states do not use grand juries requires careful checking against state statute and court-rule language, since some jurisdictions allow but seldom use grand juries.

Why a definitive list requires verification

State charging rules can change by statute or court rule, and practice can shift over time. Conservative reporting practice requires verifying a state’s current procedure against primary sources and recent rule amendments or opinions. See our issues checklist for verification steps reporters can use.

For state-level confirmation, neutral databases and official statute texts together give the needed basis for accurate reporting of which states do not use grand juries for routine felony charging.

States that retain grand juries on the books but use them rarely

Distinguishing statutory retention from routine use

Some states have grand-jury statutes that remain on the books while prosecutors and courts rely largely on other charging mechanisms. A statutory option does not necessarily translate into routine operational use.

Reports and policy research show that limited or exceptional use of grand juries can coexist with statutory retention of the grand-jury process, so usage data and state reports are informative for practice-level claims.

Examples of limited modern use

Across jurisdictions where grand juries are rare in everyday practice, they often remain available for special purposes, such as secret investigations or complex grand-jury-only offenses. Policy literature discusses how that limited use plays out in practice and why some systems maintain the mechanism.

That distinction helps explain why a single checklist item is necessary when reporting on a state’s charging procedures: statutory language, court rule, and routine practice can tell different parts of the story.

How to check a state’s current rules in 2026

Primary legal sources to consult

To verify whether a particular state uses grand juries for felony charging in 2026, consult the state criminal procedure code, the state court rules, and recent state appellate or supreme court decisions. The National Conference of State Legislatures highlights these as reliable starting points for checking state practice NCSL guidance on checking state rules.

Begin with the state code sections that govern charging and indictments, then confirm whether court rules or recent opinions have changed how those statutes operate.

Reliable secondary summaries and how to use them

Neutral secondary sources such as Ballotpedia and NCSL provide helpful state-by-state summaries, but they are best used as a way to find the governing statute or court rule to cite directly. Ballotpedia offers state summaries that point to the underlying rules and history Ballotpedia on indictments.

In all cases, confirm any secondary summary by linking to the exact statute or rule you relied on and by noting the date you checked those sources. If you need assistance, you may also contact the author for guidance on locating primary texts.

Policy tradeoffs: secrecy, screening, and prosecutor control

Arguments in favor of grand juries

Supporters of grand juries often point to secrecy and the indictment-screening function as advantages. A grand jury can investigate in private and serve as a citizen check on whether charges proceed to trial.

Policy literature documents these asserted benefits and describes the historical role of grand juries in the charging process.

Criticisms and reform perspectives

Critics note that grand juries can concentrate control with prosecutors and lack the adversarial testing that occurs at a preliminary hearing. Reform analyses argue that routine grand-jury use can weaken early testing of evidence and that alternatives offer clearer judicial review.

The Brennan Center and other reform-focused organizations examine these tradeoffs and document trends away from routine grand-jury reliance in modern practice Brennan Center analysis of grand-jury reform.

Typical misunderstandings and reporting pitfalls

Mistaking federal rule for state practice

A common mistake is to assume that the Fifth Amendment’s federal grand-jury rule applies identically in every state. Because Hurtado and subsequent practice allow states to set their own procedures, that assumption can produce inaccurate reporting.

Reporters should explicitly say where a claim is about federal law and where it concerns state practice.

Relying on outdated studies or headlines

Another frequent pitfall is relying on older summaries without checking recent 2024 to 2026 statutory changes or court-rule amendments. State procedural law can change via legislation or judicial rulemaking, and older descriptions may no longer match current practice. Check state legislative pages for active bills, for example the state legislature bill pages such as California’s official bill lookup leginfo.

Always note the date of your check and cite the controlling statute or rule to avoid repeating outdated claims.

Practical examples and scenarios reporters can use

How to phrase a state-level claim responsibly

Use precise attribution when describing a state’s charging method. For example: according to the state criminal procedure code, the state initiates most felony prosecutions by information, not by grand-jury indictment. Always link to the specific statute or court rule you relied on.

When the law is ambiguous, add a brief note that practice may vary and cite a neutral summary such as NCSL or Ballotpedia for background context.

Sample verification notes to include in copy

Sample wording might read: “State X generally uses an information filed by the prosecutor to charge felonies; that procedure is set out in State X Statutes section Y, and the law was checked on [date].” Short verification notes like this improve transparency for readers.

When an up-to-date secondary summary is useful, mention it alongside the statute, for example: “Background on state practice is available from Ballotpedia and the NCSL, but the controlling statute is [citation].”

Quick checklist for journalists and researchers

Five-step verification checklist

1. Read the state criminal procedure statute controlling indictments and informations. 2. Check state court rules for charging and grand-jury procedure. 3. Search recent state appellate or supreme court opinions that interpret the statute or rule. 4. Consult neutral summaries such as NCSL and Ballotpedia for background. 5. Note the date of your check and save the exact citation for publication.

These steps make it straightforward to confirm whether a state uses grand juries routinely, rarely, or only in specific circumstances.

Where to record sources

Record the exact statute section, the court-rule number, and any opinion names and citations. Save URLs to the official state code and to the exact court opinion when possible.

Including those citations in your copy or notes increases transparency and helps readers validate your claim.

Summary: what readers should take away

Three key takeaways

First, the Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury for federal felony indictments, but Hurtado allows states to adopt alternative charging processes. For the federal description and historical framing, see the U.S. Courts resource on the grand jury U.S. Courts guide.

Second, many states now use informations or preliminary hearings for routine felony charging rather than grand-jury indictments, and statutory retention of a grand-jury mechanism does not always mean frequent use.

Third, to confirm a particular state’s practice in 2026, consult the state statute, the state court rules, and recent appellate decisions, and use neutral summaries for background context.

Further reading and primary sources to check

Selected statutes, cases, and summaries

Key primary sources and summaries useful for follow-up include the Supreme Court decision in Hurtado v. California and neutral summaries from LII, Ballotpedia, NCSL, and the Brennan Center. These resources provide a foundation for deeper checking and context LII on grand juries.

For state-level detail, use the state code and the state court-rule docket to find the most current procedural language and any recent amendments.

Where to go for updates

Watch for state legislative sessions and court-rule amendments, and check NCSL and Ballotpedia for timely summaries that often link to primary texts. When accuracy matters, rely on the primary statute or rule and record the date you verified the source.

Readers who need state-specific answers should follow the five-step checklist in the Quick checklist section and cite the controlling statute or rule.