Can you be indicted twice by the grand jury on the same charge?
534819
Indicted? No. Once indicted, the indictment would generally lead to a trial. No matter the outcome of the trial, guilty or not guilty, there would be no grounds on which to indict a person again. (EXCEPTION: unless the person is indicted for the same crime, but a different instance that occured separately from the initial instance.\n\nThe only way you can be tried on the same charge more than once is in the event of a mistrial. \nAside from this, you can be tried for similar (but not the same) charges under certain circumstance. \n\nFor example, OJ Simpson was tried in criminal court for Murder and found not guility, but was subsequently tried in civil court for wrongful death and convicted. The punishments are completely different, criminal charges can result in fines and jail time for a defendant, while civil court can only award monetary damages to the plantiff.\n\nThere appears to be some confusion as to what the indictment process entails...Once indicted, one of two things happen...a defedant is tried and found guilty or not guilty, or a plea bargain is negotiated. \n\nWhere they exist, grand juries are part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word: an impartial panel of ordinary citizens must first decide whether there exists reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. To this end, witnesses can be compelled to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony.
721363
If the person actually took the stand during the trial and denied killing the person, then he could be charged with perjury.  If he didn't take the stand and get sworn in, it can't be said to be perjury.  He may get charged with obstructing justice, depending on what he has or hasn't said to the police.  If it is a federal crime and the FBI is involved, he could be charged with lying to federal agents.  Probably the worst case situation other than these things is that he could face a civil trial in the same way O J Simpson did and be facing a huge financial penalty...it is rather stupid for anyone to do that though.  Otherwise, unfortunately, double jeopardy will apply.  Even on an appeal, it can only be on the evidence presented, not on any new evidence.  If a higher court does decide to send it back to a lower court for a retrial, he could be in big trouble.  Hope this helps.
687107
The State can continue it three times, and the Defense can continue it three times. The Judge can continue it as she or he sees fit, but rarely does that happen as the State Supreme Court can order the trial to commence at once.
990080
Usually, it will be somewhere in the vincinity of a 2nd-4th degree felony, and each time you do it it is a new charge.  So, unless you want to spend alot of time in jail, don't do it
222658
The case is actually A03-1898 in the Minnesota Supreme Court, not the 8th circuit (which is a federal court). The full opinion is at the site below. In it, they argue that whether or not a defendant is a repeat offender for the purposes of enhancing a sentence is a finding of fact, and thus must be determined by a jury, not a judge.
1161306
You answer your own question. Two bookable offences...off you go...
762886
Nope. In the US, you can't be tried twice for the same charge if you've been acquitted.
796096
Before a crime can be brought to trial, it has to be brought before a grand jury.  If no one presses charges on the woman in the first place, then of course she won't be brought to trial in the first place.  But if somebody, say, accuses her of being an accomplice, that charge will be brought up in front of a grand jury.  In Amemdment 5 (or 6?) of the US Constitution, all charges must be brought before a grand jury to decide if there is even reason for a trial.  If the person pressing charges against the wife cannot come up with sufficient evidence to accuse her of something, then that charge dies right there.  But if there is some evidence, then she would be brought to trial on the count of being an accomplice.  Then there is the trial.  If the jury believes she is guilty of helping her husband with the crime, she will have some consequence (short period of jail, community service, etc.).  But if there is no evidence at all to support her being an accomplice, then there would be no reason of anyone pressing charges on her.
1134354
no thats a mistrial..double jeopardy would be if he was found not guilty....they could never trie him again for the same crime.
552475
The constitution requires that federal prosecutions for "capital or infamous crimes" be indicted upon the recommendation of a grand jury. The grand jury hears evidence and determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. Grand jury indictments have a lower burden of proof than the actual trial, and a grand jury rarely fails to indict as a prosecutor wishes. Many states also have grand juries, but they are not required. The idea behind them is that serious crimes are too important to let prosecutors commence at will.
981976
Grand jury investigations are secret; that's the point of a grand jury.  Illinois may be different, but in general grand jurors are sworn to secrecy and the case is not made known until the grand jury hands down an indictment.\n(The secrecy in part helps the defendant who may or may not be wrongly accused; that's why the grand jury is investigating--to see if there's probable cause to charge.)
261655
indictment\n\nif I understand your question
164651
it depends if the DA has decided to press charges.  If so..then yes.  If not, I am assuming this is why you were released.
1172384
In certain states you can press charges on a person for that.
737604
Whatever state you are in, go on line and type in (example: Missouri state statutes....or Ohio state statutes.  This will probably bring up the statutes for your state and then search tampering with a witness.  Re-filing on the same charge is done all the time.  Unless you have been tried previously on the same offense, this can be done for as long as the statute of limitations are in effect.  The DA would have to show that new evidence has come forward that indicates that the refiling is justified.  Yes, you would be re-arrested, booked and offered bail unless the DA can show that you should be held without bail because you represent a direct threat to the safety of someone else who will be testifing in another case.  It's a serious charge and judges frown on anyone tampering with a witness because basically you are spitting in the judges eye and saying "I'm not letting a judge decide this case based on what this other person may say, so I will intimidate them until they are too afraid to testify."  The judge may throw the book at you.
769752
You have to be arraigned before a trial, which could then find you guilty.  As far as I know, you have to be arrested to be arraigned.
421367
A grand jury decides only whether someone is indicted (forced to stand trial).  Typically a grand jury is seated for a long period (3 months or more) and meets periodically to hear a prosecutor's evidence.  The prosecutor gets to put on his evidence before the grand jury without rebuttal from a defense attorney or a defendant, so grand juries very often vote to indict as they have heard only one side of the case.  Keep in mind that a grand jury does not vote on guilt or innocence, just whether the state has enough evidence to bring a case to trial.\n\nA regular jury is a factfinder in a trial.  They would come into play (in the criminal context) only if the grand jury had voted to indict.  Also, unlike a grand jury, which hears evidence in many cases, a jury hears only one.