22-3007.
Duty of prosecuting attorney.
(a) In the case of grand juries impaneled pursuant to subsection (a) or (c) of K.S.A. 22-3001, and amendments thereto, the prosecuting attorney shall:
(1) When requested by any grand jury, attend sessions thereof for the purpose of examining witnesses or giving the grand jury advice upon any legal matter; and
(2) upon such attorney's request, be permitted to appear before the grand jury for the purpose of giving information relative to any matter cognizable by the grand jury, and may be permitted to interrogate witnesses if the grand jury deems it necessary.
(b) In the case of grand juries impaneled pursuant to subsection (b) of K.S.A. 22-3001, and amendments thereto, the prosecuting attorney shall:
(1) Attend all sessions thereof and inform the grand jury of all offenses liable to indictment and evidence of which will be presented to them for consideration;
(2) present witnesses and examine such witnesses on all matters to be considered by the grand jury; and
(3) give the grand jury advice upon all questions related to the proper discharge of their duties.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3007; L. 2013, ch. 85, § 8; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case:
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 7× “19-713; K.S.A. 22-3007. The disciplinary panel found multiple violations resulting from Kline’s actions in either failing to advise the grand jury or in stepping outside of his limited role.”
State v. Green, 920 P.2d 414 (Kan. 1996).
“The defendant also contends that the grand jury did not request the prosecuting attorney to attend and question witnesses in accord with K.S.A. 22-3007(1) and (2). Again, however, the record reflects that the county attorney was present and questioned witnesses with the approval…”
State v. Bird, 482 P.3d 1157 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3007. But starting in 2011, the Legislature began enacting nearly annual modifications to the grand jury statute that gave prosecutors more control over the process.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3007(1) — 2 cases
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
“19-713; K.S.A. 22-3007. The disciplinary panel found multiple violations resulting from Kline’s actions in either failing to advise the grand jury or in stepping outside of his limited role.”
State v. Green, 920 P.2d 414 (Kan. 1996).
“The defendant also contends that the grand jury did not request the prosecuting attorney to attend and question witnesses in accord with K.S.A. 22-3007(1) and (2). Again, however, the record reflects that the county attorney was present and questioned witnesses with the approval…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3007(2) — 1 case
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
“19-713; K.S.A. 22-3007. The disciplinary panel found multiple violations resulting from Kline’s actions in either failing to advise the grand jury or in stepping outside of his limited role.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3007(b) — 1 case
State v. Bird, 482 P.3d 1157 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“K.S.A. 22-3007. But starting in 2011, the Legislature began enacting nearly annual modifications to the grand jury statute that gave prosecutors more control over the process.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.