Someone who's actually served, please weigh in here.
Thanks.
I haven't, but I know a libertarian friend that did get called to server on a GJ in MD.
On a GJ, you get to ask any question you want of the jackboots. It's very informal and you can challenge them on their constitutional authority to bring whatever charges they are seeking.
On the one in MD, they only needed a majority of votes on the whole GJ to have an indictment be served, so there's no hanging it. At the very least you can embarrass the gov agents and make them trip over themselves answering questions YOU come up with, so they dance for you. At best, you can educate your peers on the jury and slow the machine down for a bit.
For my friend, I think he served every Thursday for a month or two. Something like that.
Yes, absolutely getting on a GJ is as good as it gets in clogging the gears and without being a political prostitute. Go for it.
(I'm sure you know that) unlike petit juries (in criminal trials-civil juries also decide cases with simple majorities) grand juries work on majority votes to return "true bills" or "bills of ignoramus".
If you give the correct answers and are seated you'll soon see that the foreman (a local jeweler, Mr. Goldstein) is a state worshiping shill who has "delivered the merch" before and was placed on the jury (again) and in the chair (possibly again) to bring in true bills on everything. "He's guilty or he wouldn't be here!", a federal grand juror in Philly once told a friend of mine. This suggests a belief in the infallibility of the system, but the very existence of citizen juries is proof that the founders believed that this thinking was bull deux deux.
If you choose to oppose an indictment make sure you aren't alone. (unless after you've established your creds as fair and knowledgeable you feel confident that you can roll a few others)
Once typecast as "anti govt" none of the others will vote with you again. In fact, if you let someone else raise objections first then make compelling arguments you'll stay under wraps longer.
There may be many indictments in which the jury is split, and that's fine. Just make sure that you aren't alone in dissenting on any one case. (And if asked you've never even heard of the FIJA)
A silly as it is some cowardly people actually worry about retaliation if they swim upstream and frustrate the crooked lawyers and judges. And, they'll view a rogue juror as a Judas goat leading them to "slaughter" (i.e. tax audits, being followed by police, etc.,.)
Be very deferential to the state. It's fine to say, "I believe that the officer is lying." But, don't say, "Cops perjure themselves every day!" It's absolutely true but it's also "sacrilegious".
If you choose to "go for broke" to protect an innocent victim from malicious prosecution and you have to fight the foreman, you can say that he is there to serve the state and you are there to serve the constitution. You may also ask if he's the foreman now because he brought in true bills on everything in the past, and imply that he (or she) may be too cowardly to disappoint a prosecutor and the judge who appointed her or him.