If there is not evidence to support the charges then it is unlikely the prosecutor would pursue the matter until the time such evidence is obtained. Questionable cases are usually heard by a grand jury to determine whether or not there are sufficient grounds to prosecute the individual(s).
Grand juries review all the facts of a case and hear witnesse testimony. One should be aware of the distinction between a lack of physical evidence and a lack of ANY evidence. Circumstantial evidence may still exist which might be sufficient for a prosecutor to pursue a conviction.
A hear say evidence is not enough for a person to be indicted.
Not necessarily
If the President is accused of stealing and the evidence against him is solid, he could be impeached, convicted and removed from office. After that, he could be indicted and tried like a common citizen.
It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial
When someone is indicted, it means that a grand jury has reviewed evidence presented by prosecutors and has decided that there is enough evidence to charge the person with a crime. An indictment is a formal accusation, and the person will then proceed to trial to determine guilt or innocence.
It means the the law enforcement investigation phase of the case against the defendant is finished (closed), due to the fact that the arrestee was indicted for the offense by the Grand Jury.
It means the the law enforcement investigation phase of the case against the defendant is finished (closed), due to the fact that the arrestee was indicted for the offense by the Grand Jury.
Reindictment refers to the process of bringing new or additional charges against a defendant who has already been indicted for a crime. It typically occurs when there is new evidence or legal developments that warrant additional charges beyond those originally filed.
No it is usually a step to determine if the evidence is strong enough to charge and go to trial.
Not necessarily. If there's enough evidence in a grand jury's mind to hold you for a crime they can indict, wherein a warrant can be issued for your arrest.
There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.
I'm So Indicted was created in 2005.