Federal Indictments

What Happens Next and How to Fight Back

Handling a Federal Indictment First Steps

1. Stop talking to agents. You don’t “talk your way out” of a federal case—ever. Politely invoke your right to counsel.

2. Do not text, DM, or post about the case. Assume everything is preserved (and discoverable).

3. Gather documents (devices, emails, financials) and list potential witnesses while memories are fresh.

4. Plan for the initial appearance and detention hearing. Some cases have a presumption of detention; preparation matters.

5. Call counsel who tries federal cases—today. Early moves set the tone for bail conditions, discovery, and motions practice.

What Is a Federal Indictment?

A grand jury (16–23 citizens) decides if there’s probable cause to believe a federal crime occurred. For most felonies, the government needs an indictment to prosecute, unless you waive indictment and proceed by “information.” The indictment must be a plain, concise statement of essential facts.

Grand jury proceedings are secret; hearsay can support an indictment; prosecutors generally do not have to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Sealed indictments are common; they’re unsealed upon arrest or summons.

From Indictment to Arraignment: The Roadmap

Once a federal indictment has been returned, the first step is the issuance of a warrant or summons. The indictment itself serves as the finding of probable cause, which means the court can immediately authorize a warrant for your arrest or, in some cases, issue a summons requiring you to appear. This document is not simply a formality—it is the government’s tool to bring you under the jurisdiction of the court and begin the prosecution process.

Following that, you will face arraignment. At this hearing, the judge advises you of the charges against you, ensures that you understand them, and formally asks for your plea. The overwhelming majority of defendants initially plead “not guilty,” which preserves all available defenses and buys time to review the evidence. The arraignment sets the stage for the proceedings that follow, including detention decisions, scheduling, and discovery.

Once arraignment occurs, the Speedy Trial Act comes into play. In theory, the Act requires that your trial begin within seventy days of the indictment or your first appearance, whichever comes later. In practice, however, the statute contains numerous exclusions—delays that do not count toward the seventy-day clock. Motions practice, continuances, and the complexity of the case often extend the timeline far beyond what the statute seems to promise. Importantly, courts have made clear that you cannot prospectively waive your Speedy Trial rights, so the statute provides both leverage and protection when properly invoked.

During the pretrial phase, discovery obligations become critical. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the government’s duty to turn over certain evidence, including your own statements and tangible items it intends to use at trial. Beyond this, the prosecution is constitutionally required to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material under the Brady and Giglio line of cases. After witnesses testify on direct examination, the Jencks Act requires the government to produce prior statements of those witnesses, which can be invaluable for cross-examination. Effective defense work involves pressing for every piece of discovery to which you are entitled and holding the government accountable for timely disclosures.

Finally, motions practice shapes the battlefield before trial. Pretrial motions allow the defense to challenge legal defects in the indictment, suppress unlawfully obtained evidence, or raise constitutional violations. These challenges can sometimes eliminate charges altogether or, at minimum, narrow the government’s case and improve your negotiating position. Even when a motion does not end the case, it often forces prosecutors to reveal more about their evidence and strategy, giving the defense a clearer path forward.

Can You Get the Indictment Dismissed?

Here’s a fully rewritten version of your excerpt in paragraph form, with the ideas expanded so they read more like a persuasive, client-facing explanation than a shorthand checklist:

It is sometimes possible to seek dismissal of a federal indictment, and a good defense lawyer will pursue that option whenever justified. One avenue involves challenging the sufficiency of the indictment itself. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that the charging document set forth every essential element of the offense, and courts have emphasized that it must do more than merely copy the statutory language. In Russell, for example, the Supreme Court explained that indictments must contain enough detail to inform the accused of what they must defend against, and in Hamling, the Court held that failure to allege every element of the crime renders an indictment legally inadequate. Where an indictment is vague or conclusory, the defense can also move for a bill of particulars under Rule 7(f) to force greater specificity.

Another possible ground for dismissal arises when constitutional violations taint the case. One of the most difficult—but occasionally successful—arguments is selective prosecution. Under Armstrong, a defendant must show both that the government acted with a discriminatory purpose and that others similarly situated were not prosecuted. Meeting this standard is demanding, but where the facts align, it can expose unfair targeting by prosecutors.

Statutes of limitation also come into play. For most non-capital federal offenses, the government must bring charges within five years, although there are exceptions for certain crimes. If the indictment is filed after the limitations period has expired, the defense has a strong basis to seek dismissal.

Challenges to grand jury proceedings, by contrast, are far more constrained. Courts have made clear that they will not re-weigh the evidence presented to the grand jury. In Costello, the Supreme Court held that indictments may rest entirely on hearsay, and in Williams the Court ruled that prosecutors are not required to present defense-friendly evidence to the grand jury. These rulings make clear that most attacks on the quality of the grand jury evidence itself will fail.

The reality is that complete dismissals of indictments are rare. Still, pursuing these motions has value beyond the slim chance of outright victory. A well-aimed challenge can force the government to narrow its case, suppress critical evidence, or reveal weaknesses that can be exploited later. Even if the indictment survives, these efforts often improve the defense’s leverage in negotiations and shape the battlefield for trial.

Bond & Pretrial Release (Bail Reform Act)

At or shortly after your first court appearance, the judge must decide whether you will be released or detained pending trial. This decision is not arbitrary; it is guided by statute and hinges on two critical questions: are you a flight risk, and do you pose a danger to the community? To answer those questions, the court weighs several factors, including the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the government’s evidence, and your personal history and characteristics. In certain types of cases—such as major drug or firearms prosecutions—the law creates a rebuttable presumption that you should remain in custody, which places the burden on you and your attorney to show why release is appropriate. Timing is also important. The rules generally require that the detention hearing be held immediately, though short continuances are allowed: up to three days if the government requests the delay, or up to five days if the defense does, not counting weekends or holidays.

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Salerno, confirmed the constitutionality of preventive detention under this framework. The Court made clear that holding a defendant before trial is not meant as punishment, but rather as a regulatory measure designed to protect the public and ensure appearance in court. In practical terms, this means that if you want to be released, you and your counsel must be ready to rebut the presumption of detention with real evidence—showing strong ties to the community, steady employment, reliable third-party custodians, or workable conditions such as electronic monitoring and travel restrictions.

One often-overlooked but crucial aspect of this process is the interview conducted by Pretrial Services. What you say in that interview can significantly affect the court’s view of your suitability for release. Even small details—verifiable housing, documented employment, or evidence of stable family support—can tip the balance in your favor. Preparation is everything; going into that interview unprepared can create unnecessary risks, while a carefully planned presentation can make the difference between release and detention.

What the Government Must Share (and When)

In every federal case, discovery obligations form the backbone of the defense’s ability to prepare. The government is required under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to produce certain categories of materials, such as any statements you made to law enforcement, documents or tangible objects the government intends to use at trial, and data obtained during the investigation. These materials allow your attorney to understand the scope of the government’s evidence and to begin crafting a strategy to respond.

Beyond the basic framework of Rule 16, the Constitution itself imposes additional disclosure duties on the prosecution. Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, the government must turn over evidence that is favorable to the defense. This includes both exculpatory material—evidence that tends to show you are not guilty—and impeachment material—evidence that could call into question the credibility of government witnesses. These disclosures can dramatically shift the course of a case, as they may reveal weaknesses in the government’s theory or undermine the reliability of key testimony.

A third major component of discovery comes from the Jencks Act, which requires the government to provide prior statements of its witnesses. Unlike Rule 16 or Brady/Giglio, these statements are typically produced only after the witness has testified on direct examination at trial. While the timing can be frustrating, the Jencks Act materials are powerful tools for cross-examination, enabling the defense to highlight inconsistencies, expose exaggerations, or reveal outright contradictions in the government’s evidence.

Taken together, Rule 16, Brady/Giglio, and the Jencks Act create a framework of disclosure that is critical to ensuring fairness in federal prosecutions. A skilled defense attorney knows how to press for full compliance, challenge late or incomplete disclosures, and use the information effectively to weaken the prosecution’s case.

Trial, Pleas, and Sentencing

In every federal prosecution, discovery—the process of exchanging evidence—is one of the most important stages of the case. Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government must provide certain core materials. These include any statements you made to investigators, as well as documents, data, and tangible items the prosecution intends to use at trial. This early disclosure helps the defense understand the scope of the case and begin evaluating the strength of the government’s evidence.

But Rule 16 is only the starting point. The Constitution itself imposes broader obligations on prosecutors. Through the landmark cases Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, the Supreme Court established that the government must turn over evidence favorable to the defense. This includes information that might directly point to your innocence, as well as material that undermines the credibility of government witnesses. These disclosures are not optional—they are essential to ensuring fairness, and when prosecutors withhold them, convictions can be overturned.

A third discovery obligation arises from the Jencks Act. Unlike Brady and Giglio material, which must be turned over before trial, the Jencks Act requires the government to produce prior statements made by its witnesses, but only after those witnesses have testified on direct examination. While this timing can feel late in the process, the information is invaluable for cross-examination. Inconsistencies between a witness’s earlier statement and their testimony on the stand can create powerful opportunities for impeachment.

Together, Rule 16, the Brady/Giglio line of cases, and the Jencks Act form the pillars of discovery in federal criminal cases. A skilled defense lawyer knows not only how to demand these materials but also how to use them strategically—to expose weaknesses in the government’s case, suppress unreliable evidence, and build the strongest defense possible.

Can State and Federal Both Charge You?

Yes, it is possible to face prosecution in both state and federal court for the same conduct, and this is permitted under what is known as the dual-sovereignty doctrine. The doctrine rests on the principle that the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns, each with its own authority to enforce its laws. Because of this distinction, a single act can violate both state and federal statutes, and each government has the power to prosecute without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this doctrine in Gamble v. United States (2019). In that case, the Court made clear that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent separate sovereigns from bringing their own prosecutions. While this outcome can feel unfair to defendants who might face two sets of charges for essentially the same conduct, it is firmly established as constitutional law.

To mitigate this risk, the Department of Justice follows an internal guideline known as the Petite Policy, which advises federal prosecutors to avoid duplicating state prosecutions unless there is a compelling federal interest not addressed by the state case. However, the Petite Policy is not a legal right that defendants can enforce in court. It is purely an internal check on prosecutorial discretion, and courts have consistently held that violations of the policy do not provide a defense or grounds for dismissal.

For someone under investigation, the practical reality is that both state and federal charges may be possible. That means defense strategy must consider not only the immediate case but also the possibility of overlapping prosecutions. Having an attorney who practices regularly in federal court and understands the interplay between jurisdictions is essential to protecting your rights and minimizing your exposure.

Common Myths

A common misconception is that if a grand jury has issued an indictment, the government’s case must be overwhelming. That is not necessarily true. Grand juries operate very differently from trial juries. They hear only one side of the story—the prosecution’s—and the rules of evidence are far more relaxed. In fact, hearsay is permitted, and the defense has no right to present its own witnesses or challenge the government’s evidence at that stage. The bar for probable cause is low, and an indictment says more about what the prosecutor chose to present than about the actual strength of the case.

Another dangerous idea is the belief that you can “explain everything” to federal agents and clear things up on your own. This almost always backfires. Agents are trained interrogators, and what you intend as an explanation can easily be twisted into an admission or inconsistency that will later be used against you. The smartest move you can make is to exercise your constitutional right to counsel and refuse to answer questions until your attorney is present.

Defendants also often misunderstand the Speedy Trial Act. On paper, it says that a trial should begin within seventy days of indictment or first appearance, whichever is later. In practice, however, there are numerous exclusions that stop the clock—such as when motions are pending or continuances are granted—and federal courts regularly manage crowded dockets with complex scheduling issues. In addition to the statute, the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial, but under Barker v. Wingo the test for violations is flexible and depends on multiple factors, not simply the passage of time.

Finally, many assume that if the government has frozen their assets, they can contest the grand jury’s probable-cause determination. In reality, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaley v. United States significantly limits such challenges. Once the grand jury finds probable cause and returns an indictment, that determination is generally conclusive, even in the context of restraining property needed to pay for counsel. This can be frustrating, but it underscores the importance of mounting challenges in other areas—through motions, discovery, and trial strategy—where the defense can still exert real influence.

How Ron Defends Federal Criminal Indictments

1. Pressure‑test the indictment and the investigation (Rule 12 motions; defects; suppression).

2. Exploit discovery obligations (Brady/Giglio/Jencks) to surface weaknesses.

3. Win (or at least improve) the bond fight with evidence and tailored conditions.

4. Control the timeline under the Speedy Trial Act while preserving your defense.

5. Shape sentencing exposure early (variance arguments under § 3553(a); mitigation).

Bottom Line

At the end of the day, a federal indictment is simply the government’s way of saying it believes it has enough evidence to move forward. But “enough” to indict is a far cry from “enough” to convict. The standard in the grand jury room is low, and the process is one-sided. Once the case reaches open court, the government must actually prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt—and that is where the real fight begins. My job is to take the government’s claim of “enough” and expose its weaknesses, showing why their evidence does not come close to what the law requires.

It is easy to be overwhelmed by chatter on the internet or by half-formed opinions offered by friends and family. But your cousin’s Facebook thread or a Google search is not controlling legal authority, and it won’t protect you when your liberty is on the line. Only a strategic, experienced defense does that.

If you are facing a federal indictment, don’t leave your future to speculation. Get real answers, tailored strategy, and an advocate who knows how to fight in federal court.