The 606 - ME GJ Not Supervening Indictment is a notice from a county or district attorney to the grand jury notifying of a direct complaint. It is an order to report for arraignment, bypassing a preliminary hearing.
Firstly: ALL indictments are handed down by a Grand Jury - so, one is not necessarily "more serious" than the other. Secondly: I BELIEVE: The description 'supervening' indictment, seems to tend to indicate that the defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury for a charge other than the one that was originally sent to to them, Thus it was unexpected, and the defendant was charged with some other offense instead of the original offense.A "supervening' indictment" is a Grand Jury indictment that is handed down after the defendant has already had an initial appearance. One is not worse than the other and it is on the original charges.
Supervene: to follow closely; ensue - - to occur as an unexpected or extraneous development.Don't fully understand the question, but yes, you can be jailed in response to ANY (or all) indictment.
Any one of several possible reasons; The case is still open - the case is still under investigation - the GJ is studying additional charges against you - there is more than one indictment that is going to be handed down - the GJ is investigating a criminal conspiracy involving more than just one person - etc - etc - etc. There is no statutory time limit in which a GJ is required to either hand down, or no bill, an indictment.
It is an indictment issued by a Grand Jury after the defendant has already had an initial appearance in his case, and the case has been set for a preliminary hearing before court. However, in the meantime the State has indicted the defendant by grand jury proceedings. This 'supervening' action by the Grand Jury indicts the defendant and has the effect of rendering all previous court actions in the defendant's case null and void.
A case under state jurisdiction has been dropped and prosecution has gone forward under federal law.Another View: While the above response can be considered correct, it is not the only possibility. In states which still utilize the GJ system, if the defendant's case was presented to a state GJ as one charge (e.g.: Murder, 1st Deg) after reviewing the case the GJ may actually indict the defendant on another offense entirely (e.g.: Manslaughter). In that event the original charge would be 'no-billed' and would have to be legally disposed of by dismissing it "due to GJ indictment" on another, separate, charge.
discuss fully the doctrine of supervening impossibiliy?
GJ Tiari is 5' 5".
Neither one comes before the other. The two are opposites of one another. A "true bill" is a valid indictment of a defendant voted on and handed down by a Grand Jury. A "no true bill" is exactly the opposite. The GJ heard the presentment and declined to indict, therefore making its finding of "no true bill" of indictment.
Supervening impossibility is the impossibility arising after the formation of a contract. However, this arises at the time when the promisor's performance is due. Such impossibility usually arises due to facts that the promisor had no reason to anticipate and did not contribute to the occurrence of. If contracting parties were allowed to plead supervening impossibility, it would make the whole basis of contract insecure. Therefore, the risk involved in supervening impossibility could be deliberately excluded by stipulations in the contract.
Gj
An indictment means that the grand jury has determined that there is enough data available to suggest that a criminal act has been committed and there is a good chance that the perpetrator will be found guilty. The information is presented to prosecuting authorities to follow through in arresting the person to be put on trial.