Also known as: bills of indictment · indictment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A charging instrument presented to a grand jury for the jury to determine whether probable cause exists to formally accuse a person of a crime. The grand jury endorses the instrument as a true bill when it finds sufficient evidence or returns a no bill when evidence is lacking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal prosecutors presented evidence to a grand jury that Bianca Blanco had committed mail fraud involving over one hundred thousand dollars. The grand jury reviewed the bill of indictment and returned a true bill. Bianca was then required to answer the charges in an Article III court rather than face any other form of accusation.
After a bill of indictment was returned against Bradley Banks for theft, the trial court entered a final judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. Prosecutors later attempted to file a new bill of indictment on the same facts. The prior judgment prevented any further prosecution because it necessarily decided an element the state would have to prove again.
Brandon Black was indicted for conspiracy. Officers then placed an informant in his cell. The informant only listened and took no deliberate steps to prompt statements. Because the informant remained passive, the placement after the bill of indictment did not violate Brandon's right to counsel.
Brendan Burns moved to dismiss the bill of indictment returned against him, claiming one grand juror lacked legal qualifications. The record showed that twelve qualified jurors had concurred in the indictment. The court therefore denied the motion and allowed the prosecution to proceed on the existing charging instrument.
Benito Benitez was indicted for robbery. Police then conducted a live lineup without notifying his attorney. Because the lineup occurred after the bill of indictment, it constituted a critical stage requiring counsel. The identification evidence obtained was therefore subject to suppression.
Brian Bailey was indicted for drug trafficking. The government then placed a paid informant in his cell without disclosure. The informant actively questioned Brian about the charged offense and obtained incriminating responses. The statements were suppressed because the deliberate elicitation after the bill of indictment violated the Sixth Amendment.
The grand jury reviews the evidence presented by the prosecutor and either endorses the bill as a true bill when probable cause exists or returns a no bill when it does not. This process fulfills the Fifth Amendment requirement that a person be held to answer for an infamous crime only upon indictment by a grand jury.
Supporting sources
No. The Fifth Amendment grand jury requirement has not been incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Some state constitutions independently require grand jury indictment, but federal constitutional law leaves the choice to the states.
…that he: "[I]n the past has been arrested for violating the Texas Abortion Laws and at the present time stands charged by indictment with violating said laws in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas to-wit: (1) The State of Texas vs. James H. Hallford, No. C-69-5307-IH, and (2) The State of Texas vs. James…
…opinion), does by express language provide for, among other things, a right to counsel in criminal trials, a right to indictment, and the right of a defendant to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.[^maj-14] And in two places the Constitution provides for trial by jury,[^maj-15] but nowhere in that…
…of the public importance of the issues presented and the need for prompt resolution. On March 1, 1974, a grand jury returned an indictment
…the conspirators quarreled, and on March 29, 1984, Winans and Carpenter went to the SEC and revealed the entire scheme. This indictment and a bench trial followed. Brant, who had pleaded guilty under a plea agreement, was a witness for the Government. The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that Winans…
…exists. Had there not been probable cause to support the government’s theory of the case, there never would have been an indictment. But, as we have explained at length, this is not the only way to read the evidence; it is merely the best way to read the evidence—for the prosecution. That is not how harmless error…
Supporting sources
The right attaches upon the return of the bill of indictment because that event marks the initiation of formal adversary judicial proceedings. Post-indictment lineups and other critical stages therefore require the presence of counsel.
Supporting sources
A motion to dismiss is permitted on that ground, but the court will not dismiss if the record shows that at least twelve qualified jurors concurred in the indictment. The motion must be timely and is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e).
Supporting sources
No. A violation occurs only when the informant deliberately elicits incriminating statements rather than merely listening. Passive listening by an informant after the bill of indictment does not trigger suppression.
Supporting sources