Also known as: arraign · arraigns · arraigned · arraigning · arraignments
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A court proceeding at which a defendant is brought before the trial court, informed of the charges in an indictment or information, provided a copy of the charging document, and asked to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere.
Alan Ackerman was indicted on federal fraud charges and appeared for arraignment without an attorney. The court proceeded to read the charges and accept his plea. Ackerman later challenged the proceeding on Sixth Amendment grounds because counsel was absent at this critical stage.
Antonio Alvarado faced state charges tied to a regulated business operation. At arraignment the court informed him of the indictment counts and recorded his not-guilty plea. The proceeding established the formal start of prosecution even though the underlying conduct involved property interests.
Kansas adopted a constitutional amendment in 1880 prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. To implement this, the legislature passed an act in February 1881, effective May 1, 1881, that criminalized manufacturing or selling such liquors without permits for the permitted purposes and declared violating establishments common nuisances subject to abatement. An 1885 amendatory act further detailed the nuisance procedures. Peter Mugler faced two indictments in Saline County for selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors without the required license or permit after the 1881 act took effect. He was convicted in both cases, fined one hundred dollars each, and ordered jailed until payment. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed both judgments. In a separate proceeding, the State of Kansas petitioned in Atchison County court to declare the brewery of Ziebold & Hagelin a common nuisance, abate it, and enjoin prohibited uses. The defendants removed the case to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas on federal question grounds. After recasting pleadings for equity, the circuit court dismissed the suit, prompting the State's appeal. Mugler and Ziebold & Hagelin had constructed their breweries specifically for beer production years before the 1880 amendment and continued operations without permits after the 1881 statute. The buildings and machinery held little value for other uses, and Mugler's single proven sale involved beer made prior to the act's effective date.
View caseAdrian Aguilar appeared at arraignment displaying signs of mental incapacity. The court read the charges and asked for a plea while noting the need for further evaluation. The arraignment record later supported arguments that competency should have been assessed before proceeding.
Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in a Florida state court in 1974 and sentenced to death. There was no suggestion at the time that he was incompetent to stand trial or to be sentenced. In early 1982, while on death row, Ford began to exhibit bizarre behavior that grew more serious over time. After reading about a Ku Klux Klan rally, he developed an obsession with the Klan and delusions that he was the target of a conspiracy involving the Klan and prison guards, who he believed were holding 135 of his friends and family hostage in the prison and torturing his women relatives. He began referring to himself as Pope John Paul III and claimed to have fired prison officials and appointed new justices to the Florida Supreme Court. Ford's counsel arranged for examinations by two psychiatrists. Dr. Jamal Amin evaluated Ford over roughly 14 months using taped conversations, letters, interviews, and medical records and concluded that Ford suffered from a severe mental disease resembling paranoid schizophrenia with suicide potential. Dr. Harold Kaufman interviewed Ford in November 1983 and concluded that Ford had no understanding of why he was being executed, sincerely believed he would not be executed because he owned the prisons and could control the Governor through mind waves, and showed no signs of malingering. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 922.07, Ford's counsel invoked the state procedure for determining competency of a condemned inmate. The Governor appointed a panel of three psychiatrists who together interviewed Ford for approximately 30 minutes in the presence of eight other people. Each psychiatrist filed a separate two- or three-page report. Although the diagnoses differed, all three concluded that Ford had the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and the reasons why it was imposed on him. On April 30, 1984, the Governor signed a death warrant without explanation or statement. Ford's attorneys unsuccessfully sought a hearing in state court. They then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, proffering the conflicting findings and subsequent challenges by other psychiatrists. The District Court denied the petition without a hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseAriana Azizi entered a not-guilty plea at arraignment after brief consultation with appointed counsel. She later claimed ineffective assistance because counsel failed to investigate key facts before the hearing. The arraignment transcript became central to evaluating whether performance fell below constitutional standards.
In September 1976, respondent David Washington committed a series of crimes over a ten-day period in the Miami area that included three brutal stabbing murders along with torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. After his two accomplices were arrested, Washington surrendered to police and gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third criminal episode. The State of Florida indicted him for kidnapping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him. Washington waived his right to a jury trial against counsel's advice and pleaded guilty to all charges, including the three capital murder counts. In the plea colloquy he stated that he had committed a string of burglaries but had no significant prior criminal record and that he had been under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. Counsel spoke with Washington about his background, contacted his wife and mother by telephone, but did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. At the sentencing hearing before the trial judge, counsel's strategy relied primarily on the plea colloquy to convey remorse and emotional stress and argued that these factors justified sparing Washington the death penalty. Counsel successfully moved to exclude Washington's rap sheet and decided not to request a presentence report because it would have included his criminal history. The trial judge found multiple aggravating circumstances for each murder and no mitigating circumstances, sentencing Washington to death on each of the three murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Washington sought collateral relief in state court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds including failure to request a psychiatric report, investigate and present character witnesses, and seek a presentence investigation report. He submitted fourteen affidavits from friends, neighbors, and relatives willing to testify and two reports from a psychiatrist and psychologist. The state trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Washington then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel testified, the District Court denied relief, concluding that although counsel made errors in judgment by failing to investigate mitigating evidence further, no prejudice resulted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for application of a new framework it developed for analyzing ineffectiveness claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the proper standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a capital sentencing proceeding.
View caseAndrew Avery was arraigned on high-profile charges amid intense media coverage. The court read the indictment and accepted his plea while a gag order remained in effect. The arraignment itself became part of the record used to assess whether publicity threatened a fair trial.
On the evening of October 18, 1975, local police found the six members of the Henry Kellie family murdered in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska, a town of about 850 people. Police released the description of a suspect, Erwin Charles Simants, to the reporters who had hastened to the scene of the crime. Simants was arrested and arraigned in Lincoln County Court the following morning. Three days after the crime, the County Attorney and Simants' attorney joined in asking the County Court to enter a restrictive order relating to matters that may or may not be publicly reported. This request responded to the mass coverage by news media and the reasonable likelihood of prejudicial news that would make difficult the impaneling of an impartial jury. The County Court heard oral argument but took no evidence. On October 22 the County Court granted the motion and entered an order. The order prohibited everyone in attendance from releasing for public dissemination any testimony given or evidence adduced. It also required members of the press to observe the Nebraska Bar-Press Guidelines. Simants' preliminary hearing was held the same day, open to the public but subject to the order. The County Court bound the defendant over for trial to the State District Court on charges that included commission of the murders in the course of a sexual assault. Petitioners, several press and broadcast associations, publishers, and individual reporters, moved on October 23 for leave to intervene in the District Court. They asked that the restrictive order be vacated. The District Court conducted a hearing at which the County Judge testified and newspaper articles about the case were admitted in evidence. On October 27 the District Court granted the motion to intervene and entered its own restrictive order. The order applied only until the jury was impaneled. It specifically prohibited reporting of the existence or contents of a confession Simants had made to law enforcement officers, statements Simants had made to other persons, the contents of a note he had written the night of the crime, aspects of the medical testimony at the preliminary hearing concerning the sexual assault, and the identity of the victims of the alleged sexual assault. Four days later petitioners asked the District Court to stay its order. They applied to the Nebraska Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, a stay, and an expedited appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 25 and on December 1 issued a per curiam opinion that modified the District Court's order. The modified order prohibited reporting of only three matters: the existence and nature of any confessions or admissions made by the defendant to law enforcement officers, any confessions or admissions made to any third parties except members of the press, and other facts strongly implicative of the accused. The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration of whether pretrial hearings should be closed to the press and public. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. The parties informed the Court that Simants had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, with his appeal pending in the Nebraska Supreme Court. The restrictive order expired by its own terms when the jury was impaneled on January 7, 1976. There were no restraints on publication once the jury was selected.
View caseAnthony Arnold pleaded not guilty at arraignment and invoked his right to counsel. Officers later approached him in custody without counsel present to discuss related matters. The timing after arraignment triggered analysis of whether any statements could be used at trial.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseThe court ensures the defendant has a copy of the indictment or information, reads or states the substance of the charges, and asks the defendant to enter a plea. The proceeding is conducted in open court and marks the formal start of prosecution after indictment or information.
Yes when the proceeding qualifies as a critical stage under the Sixth Amendment. The right attaches because the defendant must decide whether to plead and may waive important protections at that hearing.
Supporting sources
Yes under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(b) if the defendant consents and the court permits video teleconferencing under Rule 10(c). The waiver must be knowing and the proceeding must still satisfy the core requirements of notice and plea.
Supporting sources
The court may set a deadline at the arraignment or shortly afterward under Rule 12(c)(1). If no deadline is set, motions are due at the start of trial. A defendant may also request notice of government evidence at or soon after arraignment under Rule 12(b)(4)(B).
Supporting sources