> Is there some argument that grand juries actually protect
> defendants against baseless indictments?
In my admittedly small experience, the grand jury didn't vote to indict every case put before us. The bulk of those voted down were sting operations that seemed more like entrapment.
In the financial cases, most of them came about through a tip from a disgruntled party, and so the evidence against the accused was pretty copious and convincing. The other way they came to us was from a victim of investment fraud, where the investigators started asking questions about the victim's other investments, some of which were also fraudulent. Apparently some folks have a knack for attracting rip-off artists.
The thing that struck me was how unlike a TV crime drama the enforcement end was: following up on tips, and sting operations. No one out there actually investigating.