Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The term “speaking indictment” refers to indictments that go beyond the Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1) requirement of a “plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged” — i.e., an indictment that does more than simply track the statutory charging language and state the who, what, when, where and the elements of the crime, the manner and means, and, for Section 371 conspiracies, overt acts. The use of speaking indictments is often justified as providing notice to defendants of allegations the absence of which might otherwise provoke pretrial motions to dismiss or for a bill of particulars. See Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Resource Manual at § 214 (“The [indictment] drafter must afford the defendant … a document … that is sufficiently descriptive to permit the defendant to prepare a defense, and to invoke the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, if appropriate.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, prosecutors and courts often cite to “speaking indictments” as a reason to deny a defense motion for a bill of particulars. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51897 *9-12 (N.D.Ind. April 19, 2016).
*May exclude premium content
By Emil Sayegh
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks now target the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet.
By Jorge deNeve, Michael Simeone and David Cohen
Answering that question will force defendants facing SEC enforcement actions to focus on demonstrating the legitimacy of expenses in developing their litigation strategies.
By Lanier Saperstein and Samuel Hickey
One provision of the AMLA was added with little fanfare and minimal discussion, yet it could have a significant impact on foreign financial institutions doing business in the United States.
By Joel Cohen
Secretly recording conversations or interviews is a dirty business, and it is almost never conducted by the government with the best interests of the witness in mind.