The federal arraignment is a court hearing after an indictment, complaint, or criminal information is filed in which the defendant is informed of the criminal charges filed and enters a plea. This is the first appearance by the defendant in federal court after the arrest.
The arraignment is not a trial. It is simply the proceeding required by the law
where the accused is informed of the indictment and pleads to it. If the defendant has not been indicted, the arraignment triggers the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Every defendant about to be arraigned will have an attorney, whether privately retained or assigned by the court. Some courts allow lawyers to represent a defendant at an initial appearance only. It is called representation for arraignment purposes only.
If a defendant has been arrested on a criminal complaint without a warrant, the court has to make probable cause determination at the arraignment. The law requires that this determination be made quickly, within 48 hours, if the defendant is to be detained pre-trial after a warrantless arrest. So, most arraignments in federal courts actually happen on the day of the arrest or on the following day.
Under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1), defendants arrested in the United States must be arraigned “without unnecessary delay” before a magistrate judge or “a state or local judicial officer.” Unless the law permits otherwise, a defendant arrested outside the United States may not be arraigned before a state or local judicial officer. In some jurisdictions, if a defendant is secretly cooperating with the government after he was arrested, the arraignment can be delayed through a special waiver of speedy arraignment.
The question is what is “unnecessary delay”. This can be a very contested issue and courts will examine relevant facts to make that determination. However, there are some delays that can be excused by justifiable circumstances. There are serious issues involved where the defendant is arrested and makes a confession to law enforcement prior to his arraignment. The question courts dealt with is whether the confession could be coerced by delaying the arraignment and whether it should be suppressed. Today, confessions elicited after unnecessary delay exceeding six hours may be suppressed.
Confessions made where the arraignment has been delayed for more than six hours are still admissible if the delay is reasonable based on the time and distance required to present the defendant to a judge. In one case, a confession was admissible even after a delay of more than two days because the arrest happened before a weekend, and there was no long, hostile, or coercive interrogation.
A defendant who is arrested outside of a district where the warrant has been issued must be arraigned without unreasonable delay in the district of arrest before he is removed to the district of prosecution. Fed. R. Crim. P. 40(a). All the rules applying to arraignment will apply in this case as well, including a detention hearing, during which the issue of bail is decided.
One very important issue resolved during the federal arraignment is bail. The judge has several options when it comes to setting bail. Court may order the release of the defendant on personal recognizance or upon signing an unsecured appearance bond”, release the defendant if there are sufficient assurances that the defendant will return to court and will not harm others, detain the defendant for up to 10 days, excluding weekends and holidays, to allow the government to take the defendant into the custody in some other proceedings, or order permanent detention based on the risk of flight and/or dangerousness.
If your loved one has been arrested by federal law enforcement, you will have several hours to retain private counsel before the arraignment. Because the main goal is secure the defendant’s release, it is always beneficial to be proactive and reach out to the prosecutor before the arraignment to discuss the bail package and come to court prepared.
Call our experienced federal defense lawyers to day to speak about your situation.
Can The Government Appeal In Federal Criminal Cases?
The government has more rights to bring interlocutory appeals in federal courts compared to defendants. Interlocutory appeals are not the same as appeals after trial. These are appeals of a ruling by a trial court, which are made before trial. The government has an advantage because, unlike the defendant, the prosecution usually is not allowed to appeal an adverse verdict after trial. However, under 18 U.S.C. ß 3731, the prosecution is allowed to appeal from the following orders: (1) orders dismissing an indictment or information or granting a new trial, (2) orders suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the return of seized property and (3) orders granting the defendant bail or denying a motion for revocation or modification of the conditions of bail.
Government’s ability to appeal dismissals is not unlimited. These appeals are generally subject to the condition that they will not interfere with the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.
The law also allows the prosecution to appeal the dismissal of individual counts in an indictment or information. There is a complicated question of whether the dismissal of only part of a count may be appealed. This issue was debated by various Circuit Courts until the Congress adopted the 2002 changes to the law that state that the government may appeal the dismissal of “one or more counts or any portion of a count. This is now the established law.
The government may also appeal orders which suppress or exclude evidence or order the return of seized property if these orders are not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information. In cases where a defendant goes to the second trial after the first trial ends in mistrial, the prosecutor may appeal the pretrial denial of a motion for reconsideration of evidentiary rulings made during the first trial.
The government is also allowed to appeal a conditional order of suppression or exclusion. In the same fashion, the prosecutor may appeal court ruling that the testimony of the government’s immunized witnesses would be excluded unless the government granted same immunity to defense witnesses.
If the prosecution wants to appeal an order of suppression or exclusion, it has to certify they are not doing that in order delay the process. The government also must show that the evidence, which was excluded is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.
Under federal law, the government is allowed to appeal an order granting a motion to suppress wiretap evidence. Under the same law, the government is also allowed to appeal the denial of an application for an order of approval pursuant to the emergency wiretapping provision of 18 U.S.C. ß 2518(7).
Prosecution has the right to appeal court orders, which grant the defendant’s release or deny a motion for revocation of, or modification of the conditions of, a decision or order granting release. On the other hand, the government is not allowed to appeal from an order of the district court remanding the case to a magistrate judge for the determination of the conditions of release, because such an order is not final.
Under the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”) the government is authorized to file pretrial appeals from district court orders, which allow the disclosure of classified information, or which impose sanctions on the government for nondisclosure of classified information or which refuse to grant a protective order sought by the government to prevent the disclosure of classified information. This law does not authorize the government to appeal from a district court’s order, which allows the defendant to raise a “public authority” defense, where it was unclear that the court’s order would authorize the disclosure of classified information.
If you’ve ever watched a law or criminal justice-based television show, you’ve likely seen juries witnessing a trial and possibly even debating over the verdict. Movies such as 12 Angry Men prominently feature the important roles that jury members have. Likewise, large-scale, highly publicized trials like the O.J. Simpson trial and others prominently feature jury members who hold the futures of the defendants in their hands.
With that being said, not many American citizens actually understand the jury system. In this article, we will explore the role of the jury, how juries are chosen and who qualifies to serve on a jury at any given time.
Who qualifies for jury service?
In order to qualify legally for jury service in a United States Court system, individuals must meet certain requirements. Namely, individuals who might serve on a jury must be at least 18 years old and US citizens.
Court cases are brought to court in specific judicial districts. Generally speaking, this is the district where the crime or situation occurred. For this reason, individuals who may qualify for jury service must have resided in that same judicial district for at least one year. This is the second requirement for serving on a jury. The goal of this requirement is to have a literal “jury of your peers” to try you and hear your case in court. Having out-of-district jury members might give a different, less honest outcome.
In addition to the above, but so during those last speak English proficiently. In particular, they must be able to satisfactorily complete a form for juror qualification. The individuals must be healthy and have no disqualifying physical or mental conditions.
Individuals must also have never been convicted of a felony unless civil rights were then restored legally. Likewise, at the time of trial, potential members cannot be subject to felony charges that may be punishable by being put in prison for over a year.
These are requirements are for regular United States citizens. But there are also several groups of citizens in the U.S. that are completely exempt from federal jury service. They cannot serve on juries.
First, police department and fire fighting team professionals are exempt. Second, those who are members of active duty Armed Forces of any type are exempt. Third and finally, any type of public officers are exempt from jury service. This latter group includes members of local, state or federal government who are working full time and considered public officers.
None of the above three groups can serve on juries even if they want to. They are effectively barred from jury service.
How are juries chosen?
The process of jury selection takes place before the trial and can last for weeks. Again, it is local community members in the district where the trial will be held that are chosen from for jury duty. The first list or jury pool is taken from driver’s license or state ID renewals and voter registration lists. Random summons are mailed to the initial pool.
A group of these prospective jurors will sit in the jury box of the courtroom, and they will be questioned by the attorneys and judges that will be working the case. general questions will be asked. For example, if the case is up for capital punishment, it is important that no jury members in the final selection be out right against the death penalty as this would skew their final decision on the case. Other important questions are asked by the attorneys and judges, and some attorneys may decide to mount a challenge for cause so that certain jury members cannot be a part of the finance final jury or group. Finally, a jury is selected and empaneled.
The final group of jurors that are selected will hear all of the arguments in the case at hand. If you have a job but need to serve on a jury, you must be excused from your job for the duration of the case. That is the law.
During the case, jurors are prohibited from talking about the case outside of the juror group until the case is over. For some juries, cases may last months, which can be extremely trying and difficult. But it is important to note that serving on a jury is a civic duty, and if you are called upon, it is an important role to fulfill if you’re able.
Spodek Law Group have offered me excellent support and advice thru a very difficult time. I feel I've dealt with someone who truly cares and wants the best outcome for you and yours. I'm extremely grateful for all the help Spodek Law Group has offered me. I can't recommend them enough.
Spodek Law Group was incredibly professional and has given me the best advice I could wish for. They had been helpful and empathetic to my stressful situation. Would highly recommend Spodek Law Group to anyone I meet.
Best service I ever had. Todd is absolutely class personified. You are in the safest hands with spodek. They have their clients interest in mind.
We provide superior service, excellent results, at a level superior to other criminal defense law firms. Regardless of where your case is, nationwide, we can help you.
555 W 5th St 35th floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013
35-37 36th St, 2nd Floor Astoria, NY 11106
85 Broad St 30th Floor, New York, NY 10004
195 Montague St., 14th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201