1. (A) Challenges

   The attorney for the Commonwealth or a defendant may challenge the grand jury on the ground that it was not lawfully drawn, summoned, or selected, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified.

2. (1) The challenge shall be in the form of a written motion and shall allege the ground upon which the challenge is made.
3. (2) If a challenge to an individual grand juror is sustained, the juror shall be discharged and replaced with an alternate juror.
4. (B) Motion to Dismiss
5. (1) The attorney for the Commonwealth or a defendant may move to dismiss the information filed following the grand jury’s vote to indict the defendant based on the following grounds:
6. (a) an objection to the grand jury or on an individual juror’s lack of legal qualification, unless the court has previously ruled on the same objection under paragraph (A);
7. (b) the evidence did not establish a prima facie case that an offense has been committed and the defendant committed the offense;
8. (c) lack of jurisdiction of the grand jury; or
9. (d) expiration of the statute of limitations.
10. (2) The judge shall not dismiss the information on the ground that a grand juror was not legally qualified if the record shows that at least 12 qualified jurors concurred in the indictment.

11. (C) Any motion under paragraph (A) or paragraph (B) shall be made as part of the omnibus pretrial motion.

    Comment

    Concerning the right to challenge the array of the grand jury, see Commonwealth v. Dessus, 423 Pa. 177, 188, 224 A.2d 188, 194 (1966), in which the Court held, inter alia, that ‘‘the law . . . must not deprive an accused of any of his legal or Constitutional rights-in this case the right to promptly (a) challenge the array of the grand jury and (b) prove by legally competent evidence that one or more of the grand jurors should be disqualified for cause.’’

    Nothing in this rule is intended to limit the availability of habeas corpus review as provided by law.

    Nothing in this rule is intended to require notice to the defendant of the time and place of the impaneling of a grand jury, or to give the defendant the right to be present for the selection of the grand jury.

    Official Note

    New Rule 556.4 adopted June 21, 2012, effective in 180 days.

    Committee Explanatory Reports:

    Final Report explaining the new rule published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 4153 (July 7, 2012).

Source

The provisions of this Rule 556.4 adopted June 21, 2012, effective in 180 days, 42 Pa.B. 4140.