Talk:Indictment

Untitled

Just an observer, but reading through the article, it has severe (whether intentional or not) prejudices toward the jury concept. A few examples:

"Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries"

"In many (though not all) U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury. . ."

"Notwithstanding the existence of the right to jury trial, the vast majority of criminal cases in the U.S. are resolved by the plea bargaining process. . ."

These, especially the first two, seem unnecessary to the article's overall purpose.

Article read:

Alternatively an indictment may be issued by a court, following arraignment, at a preliminary hearing.

According to arraignment, this is when the plea is enterred; isn't indictment an earlier process than arraignment? -- Simon J Kissane

I currently have my civics book open and it agrees with you. The order of process that it states is, Preliminary Hearing, Indictment, Arraignment, Trial, Sentancing.Rudraksha 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation of this word should be listed somewhere on this article as the word sounds little like how it is spelt.

Yo! The explanation of R v Smith has been given as R versus Smith. In English law the 'v' stands for 'and'. It is in the US (and i am not sure where else) that stands for versus. I had changed this yesterday but it has been chnaged back... Come let us inform people correctly and not change it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.185 (talk • contribs) on 5 July 2007.

- It only stands for "and" in civil cases, I believe 172.189.53.141 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation "v" stands for "versus" ("against") in both English law and U.S. law, in both civil and criminal cases. The "v" does not stand for "and." Famspear (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation (at least in the UK) is "against" in criminal cases and "and" in civil cases - see the article and the book that I have cited in it. James500 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Charging document

Presently charging document redirects to this article. Are the one and they same thing? I thought an information (law) was another type of charging document, distinct from an indictment. Thanks, Tisane ^talk/_stalk 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

United States

There is a problem with the wording in the 2nd paragraph that states "...a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. This should be worded "probable cause to formally charge and if bail can not be made remand the suspect who is in custody".

If a person is in custody (deprived of liberty) they are "arrested" (seized) if they can not willing leave. An exception to this is being "detained" for a reasonable amount of time for identification Stop and identify statutes (currently around half the states) and certain questioning by an officer of the peace. A contentious practice of detaining as a material witness has shown that there can be ramifications against the authority for False imprisonment and/or False arrest (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd; held 16 days). Otr500 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Chiyere (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies"

In the article top, a distinction is made between "jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies" and "jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies". Most of the subsequent discussion seems to concern juridical terminology in English-speaking countries. I have two questions:

1. Is this really related to the concept felony, or mainly to the term?
2. Is there any other jurisdiction than that/those in the US which still uses the term "felony"?

If the answer of the first question is "mainly term", and the answer to the second one is "No", then the distinction should be stated to be primarily between US and other 'Anglo-Saxon' jurisdictions. It may also have effects on some articles with "felony" in their names. JoergenB (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Neglect

Can cps give you neglect. If the indictment is undisposed and there was no grand jury to decide if there was probable cause against the accused? This indictment is not a true bill and the accused did not waive his rights and plead guilty. He is actually on the run and in California of which is out of the jurisdiction I recently live in. But cps is saying since the accused "sexually abused" my boyfriends son and since his son had no counseling right away. That by law they are they allowed to give him neglect. His son's mom which is a active drug user and has been so for many of year(s) brought this attention to the police. she made the statement that all 3 of her children two of which are not my boyfriends kids went on a camping trip (which is true) and was all 3 sexually abused. But she did not put her third oldest child in this report. I don't know if she manipulated the truth and brain washed her 3 kids into making them give the police officers false facts. My boyfriend grew up with this guy and he never was sexually abused by this man and he practically helped raise him like a dad. Being that his biological father was not in his life. Honestly, I am lost for words and I know you should never not believe a child when they say "someone sexually abused them." I do believe the children. But as for the mom I do not believe her. Being that the third child is not in the report. The investigators have picture of all three of the boys at the camp grounds. My question is it illegal to give someone a child abuse and neglect charge for not getting counseling for the son based on accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.43.177 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Article top is poorly written

"An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt) is a criminal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment."

Does a poor job of actually explaining the concept of an indictment, appears slightly condescending.

This part as well: "In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; " Is simply poorly written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.113.229 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)