Talk:Indictment

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, High-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated C-class, High-importance) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Just an observer, but reading through the article, it has severe (whether intentional or not) prejudices toward the jury concept. A few examples:

"Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries"

"In many (though not all) U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury. . ."

"Notwithstanding the existence of the right to jury trial, the vast majority of criminal cases in the U.S. are resolved by the plea bargaining process. . ."

These, especially the first two, seem unnecessary to the article's overall purpose.

Article read:

Alternatively an indictment may be issued by a court, following arraignment, at a preliminary hearing.

According to arraignment, this is when the plea is enterred; isn't indictment an earlier process than arraignment? -- Simon J Kissane

I currently have my civics book open and it agrees with you. The order of process that it states is, Preliminary Hearing, Indictment, Arraignment, Trial, Sentancing.Rudraksha 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pronunciation of this word should be listed somewhere on this article as the word sounds little like how it is spelt.

Yo! The explanation of R v Smith has been given as R versus Smith. In English law the 'v' stands for 'and'. It is in the US (and i am not sure where else) that stands for versus. I had changed this yesterday but it has been chnaged back... Come let us inform people correctly and not change it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.185 (talk • contribs) on 5 July 2007.

- It only stands for "and" in civil cases, I believe 172.189.53.141 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The abbreviation "v" stands for "versus" ("against") in both English law and U.S. law, in both civil and criminal cases. The "v" does not stand for "and." Famspear (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct pronunciation (at least in the UK) is "against" in criminal cases and "and" in civil cases - see the article and the book that I have cited in it. James500 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]