It means a group of people called a grand jury have seen enough evidence presented by prosecutors that they think the person being investigated should be tried for crimes.

That’s it. Not that anyone is guilty or innocent. Just that there should be a trial, because there’s enough evidence to hold one.

When a person is indicted, they are given formal notice that it is believed that they committed a crime. There usually will be a criminal trial held.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So how is this different than getting a judge to sign an arrest warrant or something similar? Is it the type of crime that matters?

Not a lawyer, but from what I understand:

• "Indicted" means that a jury was told about the basics of a case, and voted that there's enough evidence that a person should go to trial.

• Usually a few days after the indictment, the person who was indicted is now taken to the court. They will be read their rights, as well as what charges are being brought against them, and they might also have their fingerprints taken or get a mugshot photo.

• The person who is indicted might be kept in jail until the trial, or they might be able to pay bail and leave. Whether they're eligible for bail is determined by what kind of crime it is, whether they're a flight risk, etc.

• Once you're indicted, within 70 days the trial must start. The trial is where the a new jury will now hear evidence and arguments from lawyers, and eventually decide if this person is guilty of the crime.

EDIT- Fixed the mistake pointed out by Russellbeattie about the jury not being the same between the first and fourth step. Please read their and Badsanna's comments for more information.

>Nope. It means the person will be charged with a crime.

Nope. It means the person has been charged with a crime.

An arrest warrant just means that a person can be arrested, that is, brought in by police against their will for short term holding and questioning. Many people are released from an arrest with no charges being brought. The warrant is essentially saying there is at least enough evidence to take a closer look at this person.

An indictment would be the next step, or more commonly in the case of most state charges and federal misdemeanors a prosecutor just makes a decision to bring criminal charges. This step is typically saying that there is significant evidence and in practice it typically means that the prosecution is confident they will win. Federal indictments result in a conviction about 95% of the time.

[removed]

It's a formal notice from the government that they believe you have committed a crime.

Lets say you counterfeit $100 and use it to buy something at the store. Later on, the store realizes the bill is fake, and hand it over to the FBI along with their security footage from that day. You're unlucky because you were the only guy to pay with a $100 bill that day, and your face is clearly on video, and they got your license plate from the parking lot, so they quickly learn your address, and what kinda looks to be a paper press in the back of your car. Sucks to be you!

Now he can't just call up the local police and get them to raid your house, that's not how any of this works. First he has to go to a judge, say "I know this guy is counterfeiting, I think he has a machine in his car and I'd like to go find out." The judge would then sign a search warrant and the DA gets to send cops to look at your car. Oops, they found a paper press that can print the bill you used, and a receipt from a local pawn shop for it. The DA might go back to the judge and ask to subpoena the pawn shop, asking for any evidence they may have. They produce an e-mail where you say you were looking for a paper press that can produce realistic looking bills... for movie production of course. You're looking pretty guilty at this point, and you know something's up, but haven't been arrested yet, so you get a lawyer.

Now the DA will bring all of that info to a Grand Jury, who's just a group of 12 people like a normal jury, present all the evidence he has, and asks them "If you were a trial jury, based on this evidence, would you believe that this guy committed a crime?" All 12 vote yes and the Judge signs the Indictment. It's still under seal, but since it's a non-volent crime, they contact your lawyer and say you need to turn yourself in, or the United States Government will hunt you down and arrest you. Your passport is also flagged, so you can't leave.

Obviously the only good option is to turn yourself in, they put the cuffs on and you begin dealing with the American Criminal Justice system. Good luck! You're gonna need it.

Who said “will be indicted”? Are you ok?

[removed]

Oh, I see you just misunderstood what was being discussed. The question was “what does indicted mean?”. You decided to talk about a future indictment, which is strange given the context that a certain indictment actually occurred today and likely gave rise to the question.

[removed]

[removed]

No. It is not believed that they committed the crime. At least not by the court. The prosecutor presumably always believes that. The defense presumably believes the opposite.

It is believed that there is enough evidence, assuming none of the evidence gets disproven or thrown out at or before the trial, for there to potentially be a guilty verdict.

[removed]

Mostly right. After an indictment a judge issues an arrest warrant and the police arrest the person and book them into jail. That's when the fingerprinting and mugshot take place.

After they're arrested they're arraigned, which is a fancy word for going to court so a judge can hear arguments from both sides to determine if the person should be remanded to jail without bail or if they are trustworthy enough to show up to trial.

At this stage the judge may revoke their passport, put them on house arrest, require them to wear a tracker at all times, or any number of things.

Trump, being extremely wealthy and owning private planes, is more than capable of fleeing the country. I would not be surprised if they revoked his passport, grounded his planes, and put him under house arrest.

I seriously doubt they would deny him bail.

In fact, he may spend no time in jail at all. Maybe a few minutes in a holding cell, as they'll probably take him to be booked at a police station then take him directly to his arraignment where he'll get out on bail.

No. Indictment does not mean the court or government thinks you committed a crime. That is why indicted people are often found innocent. not guilty

The grand jury looks at the evidence and is told, assuming all this is true, and that the defense has nothing to disprove any of it and also has no evidence of its own, would you find this person guilty.

It is basically a faux trial with just prosecution and no defense to see if it is worth holding and actual trial. Grand jury trials are not held in most cases, generally only major ones or higher profile ones. It is obviously an unneeded expense, when they can hold a regular trial without one.

Being found guilty by a grand jury is then used as evidence in the actual trial. The jury is told that there is enough evidence to convict, assuming it is all true. That definitely can influence a jury. And can be worth the extra expense, and risk. The risk being that you have to basically prove your case twice then, because innocent by grand jury means no trial.

Edit: strikethrough because I will admit the parts I am wrong about. But don't want to be the guy that just deletes posts to save face.

I had a law professor tell us repeatedly you could indict a ham sandwich. The reason being it means you could have committed a crime. Like it’s possible you did. It doesn’t mean you did or that there is great witnesses or evidence or that a trial will happen necessarily. It just means there is enough for a reasonable person to think you could have committed a crime. That’s why afterwards a trial usually will be presented if the DA can come up with charges based on what he/she thinks is suitable evidence to get a guilt verdict or to get the suspect to plea, Which is the usual outcome.

Nice and succinct.

Better answer than half the answers here that are definitely wrong, but presented as fact with no disclaimer.

I may be one of the few here that’s actually presented evidence to a grand jury.

Almost none of that is accurate. First, people aren’t “found innocent,” because the burden of proof is on the government. Defendants are either found guilty or not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing.

Further, the defense virtually never directly participates in a grand jury proceeding.

Third, it’s not a trial. Not even close. Evidence is presented under oath to a grand jury, and it is almost never all of the evidence the government has. Generally, only probable cause that one or more offenses has been committed is the standard.

Testimony generated in the grand jury process is also largely irrelevant at the trial phase, except for impeachment purposes on rare occasions.

[deleted]

I will acknowledge you correct on all of your corrections of me.

My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

You are a knowledgeable person apparently. You agree with that point, correct?

That’s a hard question to answer. The court (for the most part) is not involved in the grand jury proceeding. Obviously, however, representatives of the government likely believe the case is provable, or they wouldn’t be presenting the case to the grand jury.

An indictment is formally when charges 'stick' after being heard and voted on by a grand jury (which itself is mostly a rubber stamp - I've been a prosecutor for over a year and haven't had a single charge dismissed. Essentially the prosecution gets to 'cheat' at this step and all sorts of things unacceptable in a trial are fair game here and the defense doesn't get to put on a case - the standard of proof is also low)

From here things change depending on jurisdiction a little bit procedurally but ultimately the next step is more investigating where both sides start interviewing witnesses and broadly 'digging around' as the sides posture for either going to trial or negotiating a different resolution (ie a plea but in some instances things like civil compromise is seen as 'good enough' for the prosecution to justify dropping the case)

If it sounds like an indictment is nothing but a rubber stamp procedural thing thats because it is. It exists solely because the monarchy in England used to quite literally abduct people on charges with no basis in fact and hold them pretty much until they decided to let the person out (if they ever felt like it) so the indictment was created to force the crown to show that there was SOME evidence of the charges being alleged

While true it's also fleetingly rare for a grand jury indictment not to lead to a conviction. Federal Grand juries have a conviction rate of over 99%.

Edit: I was mistaken. Grand juries almost always indict, but conviction rates seem pretty hard to track down if anyone knows what the conviction rate is, please elucidate the rest of us.

It means chargesheeted...the trial can commence. because its already presented before a grand jury who have reviewed the evidence and come to an unanimous conclusion that there is enough wrongdoing for a case , chances of a conviction are very high. The only thing left is the opportunity to rebut the evidence presented so far by the defence team.in the usa trials proceed quickly..like 2-3 months max, so that you can't postpone the inevitable like in india, trial court judgement has power, unlike india where it's lots easier to appeal in High court and delay going to jail

[removed]

I highly doubt that Trump will be required to surrender his passport or that his planes will be grounded.

As a former president of the United States, he will, in my opinion, most likely be released on his own recognizance and not even have to post bail.

until i see an orange jumpsuit on him, i'm not getting excited. i honestly dont have high hopes unfortunately

Is this not a NY state indictment though?

Mugshot? That'll be on the cover of every magazine in the world. Wow! I'll be happy when that happens.

Nice, basic definition.

I'd only add to make clear that the defendant usually gets no representation before a grand jury. Only the prosecution gets to make their case. That's why it's extremely rare for a grand jury not to indict someone. An article from a few years ago notes: "U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." That's why there's a famous saying that goes, "if a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich".

Not as nicely succinct as you, but an important point to keep in mind about indictments!

It is. I don't know about New York specifically, but state/county prosecutors often have the option to defer to a grand jury and it tends to be done in high profile cases or situations where the prosecutor wants distance or cover from the decision to charge or not to charge.

It's less common for state charges and the process varies more by jurisdiction so the conviction statistics aren't as reliable as the federal ones.

They have an indictment rate that high.

Any source on conviction rate being that high?

What's the UK equivalent of "indict"? We don't use that in British English.

A Grand Jury basically is a court trial where the Defense is not present at all. The Prosecution presents it's evidence and tells it's story without any arguments. The idea being that if the prosecution presents the best case it can and they still can't convince a jury to convict, then there is no real point to going to a trial. They are confidential in order to protect the defendant in the case that there isn't enough evidence to convict.

[removed]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/

Edit: this shows indictment rate, not conviction rate. I can't find a good source for the conviction rate.

To be officially accused of a crime. That's it.

It can be by a grand jury or a prosecutor, but the long and short of it is often phrased as "charges have been filed." Doesn't have to mean a warrant for arrest has been issued, or the accused has appeared in court, or anything else besides "legal action is being sought against the accused."

To formally be charged or accused of a serious crime.

America and one other country has and extra step with the grand jury, and that part originated in england though I believe you no longer have the grand jury part as an extra unnecessary step

[deleted]

Everything I know about being indicted I learned from Jim Carry in Dick and Jane. Expect to see some crazy shenanigans and heists from the Trumps.

It means that there is sufficient proof to try a person in court. The grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence to accuse someone of a crime. There is not burden of proof as to guilt or innocence. The question is, is there enough valid evidence to make an accusation of guilt.

[deleted]

Pay walled, but what I can see of the article is saying that they indict 99% of the time, not the rate at which they convict.

Nobody wants to be the guy to press charges against a high profile anybody. Let the grand jury do it so that prosecutors can use them as a scape goat basically.

Paywall bypassed

It does not say anything about conviction rate.

I think they just don't understand that indictment means "charged with" and not "guilty"

This eli5 would help, but a lot of wrong info here too

Bro there is exactly a 0% chance that Trump is put under house arrest or has his movement restricted.

I'm curious about the role of the secret service in ensuring that he doesn't flee.

[removed]

Thanks u/jcw10489 for this thread and u/mojoxer for this answer.

It's not surprising because the prosecutors generally don't present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And there is no attorney for the defense. So, hearing only one side of the case, they almost always vote to indict.

why did the warrant part get skipped in this case?

[removed]

>After an indictment a judge issues an arrest warrant and the police arrest the person and book them into jail.

This seems like the opposite of what u/owmyfreakingeyes said above, where an indictment follows an arrest.

I have to admit, this is further than I thought they'd ever get. I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

Cut this down to 3 sentences and not 3 paragraphs and you've got a good ELI5.

A person has been charged with a crime ad should be put on trial. The indictment is different from other situations where someone is charged because a grand jury, not the police or local government attorneys, have decided the evidence warrant the charge.

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a scape goat. It’s intended to bring a level of impartiality which I think is a good thing. I’m general I think they should be used more often , but especially in cases where it can be high profile.

[deleted]

So, in the UK we just say...."arrested"? "Charged"? Not really sure.

Likely because they know where he is, and he isn’t going to be able to disappear easily. Too high profile, and frankly too …loud? to be able to go unnoticed.

yeah you could theoretically be called for grand jury duty. You may look into regular jury duty selection if curious since it'll answer your question-- basically lots and lots of lawyers questioning jury people and dismissing those they think are too biased etc until they have the right amount of people.

In america, it is an additional step after arrested, but before the trial.

I am not sure that England had an extra step. But it is charged. Formally saying that there is enough evidence to have a trial.

Dunno if you're referring to a search warrant or arrest warrant; I'll assume the latter.

Broadly speaking, arrest warrants are issued because many suspects flee and hide instead of choosing to face justice, so the police has to arrest them to prevent that from happening.

In cases where the suspect is deemed unlikely to flee (or be unsuccessful at hiding) the justice system sometimes allows them to surrender on their own to face arraignment.

Additional factors: Was the crime violent, or white collar? Is the person sufficiently high-profile enough that offering a voluntary surrender is (politically and socially) preferable to arresting them at their home?

is a grand jury always used? if not, what situations does it 'bypass' the grand jury?

[removed]

So who decides if there is enough evidence to have a trial in the UK?

I don't think we have grand juries, so....just the police?

That's not their job.

It's a step in the incredibly long process of a person being tried for a crime. There are many more steps to come, but being indicted means a person has lost one of the ways to get out of it without punishment.

[removed]

At its most basic, an indictment is basically when someone accuses someone of something in a formal and public manner. An example of an indictment: "Hey everyone! This guy stole a bunch of shit from that store. [Turning to the thief] I saw you do it and this other guy did too. We should all talk about how we know you did it (like what kind of proof we have) and what we should do to punish you for it."

In common parlance, it's the act of a state formally accusing someone of a crime (although procedurally, people are "charged" with crimes as a separate step).

[removed]

I'm ill informed but maybe the CPS - Crown Prosecution Service. I think very roughly the police gather information and run it by / through the CPS, kind of a group of lawyers, who decide if prosecution is appropriate.

[removed]

I agree that his SS detail won't either help or hinder his leaving, but id be hella curious about the interaction between his detail and the US marshals if he tries to rabbit.

There is no precedent for this specific case, so I wouldn't extrapolate from past conviction rates anyway.

> I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

What makes this time different?

> The trial is where the same jury who voted to indict a person will now hear evidence

This is incorrect. Grand juries decide on multiple cases during their term of service (6 months to a year), determining if there's enough evidence in each to indict. Then they are released from service.

70 days is for federal courts and is regularly extended.

Once a trial begins, a bunch of random other citizens are summoned creating a pool of potential jurors, then each side gets to dismiss a certain number that they don't like and whoever is left becomes the trial jury.

Sorry little late to the thread, and fair points to you for admitting you’re wrong on the Internet! Lol

From your comment below:

>My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

I think we’re just having a miscommunication over what “the government” is. Since you said “court or government” it sounds like you’re saying the US or State government where you’ve been charged, and you’re correct that the entire government considers you innocent until proven guilty.

In court parlance, “The Government” I’m referring to means the prosecutor. If you were indicted, the case would be “The United States vs Ninjaromeo” and you would be referred to as your name or “the defendant,” while the prosecutor would be referred to as “the government.”

Prosecutors do not bring cases against people unless they think they can win the eventual court case, so by that definition, any indictment is the prosecutor (and using that parlance, “the government”) thinking you’re guilty.

And just to comment on your strikethroughs, as you are correct on some points though your interpretations went outside of reality. You’re right that only the prosecutor presents anything, but that is to make sure that based on that evidence they have a trial in the first place. Trials are expensive, and if a case can’t stand up to evidence without a defense, it definitely won’t stand up without one. In some cases the prosecutor can just go to a judge, but grand juries are a way to make that even more impartial particularly in high profile cases where it might be difficult to find an impartial jury.

Your fourth paragraph is where your comment went off the rails though, grand jury proceedings are secret for a reason, and cannot be used as evidence. Only evidence can be used as evidence. If they don’t see that you’ve met probable cause, you aren’t going to win in a trial anyway, so not putting taxpayer dollars toward that is a good thing.

I hope that helps and if we want to look at the only silver lining to trump, it’s that any of us paying attention are getting a great lesson in American civics and our legal system! 😜

Next reddit post: eli5 what does "succinct" mean?

Short but explains clearly.

The act of giving oral to a tattooed person.

Short and to the point.

ELI5: What does oral mean?

That's what she said

This particular crime technically already saw court, where his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who facilitated the illegal payments, was convicted and went to prison for a few years. At the time, Trump was also believed to be criminally culpable, but he argued that sitting presidents can't be charged with crimes.

The prosecutors basically said "ok, we'll wait", and now that he's been out of office, they finally assembled their case.

eli5: "clearly"

I want to know what happens with the secret service if he actually ends up serving time. Do they go to prison with him? Talk about a shitty job.

eil5: "eli5"

See through

Piggybacking off this question

What does the count means? Another post said that he's got 34 counts in the indictment.

It's part of the name of a brand of toothpaste.

How is it different than charged?

Came here to make that correction.

Also, finding an impartial jury in this case (if it ever makes it to trial) will be literally impossible

The tattooed person attempting to name the mountains between Russia and Kazakhstan, while someone is succinting them.

Arrest warrants and indictments are both early steps in charging someone with a crime, but that doesn't mean one is just the logical next step.

There's a lot of reasons you can get an arrest warrant for someone. You can get a warrant because they're one of several suspects, and a flight risk. Or because you have reason to believe they have information about the case, even though you don't suspect them personally.

What is 5, and why are we so certain that it's more than 3?

[deleted]

His movement is restricted enough as it is in those baggy suits.

I've heard from a reliable source that 2+2=5. Is this true?

It depends on what the Party said.

Grand Jury is definitely more interesting than normal jury duty, I’ll say that. Potentially way more traumatic though. Though for cases like this it wouldn’t be a normal grand jury, who are usually empaneled to a good amount of cases over a week, two week, sometimes multiple months in certain jurisdiction. I’m pretty sure for something this big the grand jury was only empaneled for this specifically.

Note that for grand juries the person being accused doesn’t get representation, nor is there a judge. The DA leads the proceedings. That’s why you hear things like “You could indict a ham sandwich”. Generally speaking, a committed DA can close to always get an indictment. Though with cases like this with major political ramifications I doubt there was much bias involved. Getting the indictment only for him to be found not guilty at trial because you overplayed your hand could be career ending. They honestly do want insight into how a jury will see the evidence, what questions they have about it, etc. It would be profoundly foolish to waste the opportunity on just getting an indictment with weak evidence.

The other thing that will happen is that the more Trump plays footsy with the legal system, the more the rats will want to get off the sinking ship.

With the prospect of a second Trump term less likely, they're be more mouths to feed than cronyism to feed them, and his ability to stave off witnesses and prevent other issues in civil court lessens.

Because some things are and some things are not.

A case this high profile not even a grand jury would function as a scapegoat. If they got the indictment but not the conviction because they overplayed the evidence they had…let’s just say it would not be a positive career move. They absolutely want the opinion of the grand jury on the evidence they have and playing fast and loose with bias to get the indictment with weak evidence would be self-destructive.

Thank you for the answer.

Does it mean that every trial has started with an indictment or is it only for a limited list of "crimes" ?

In many countries, the prosecutor decides himself if sbdy should go to trial.

How guys from NY ask for head. “Gimme some Oral-B”

Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse. It’s not entirely clear that he even registers when he is lying, it is so ingrained in his style of speaking it’s barely conscious. It seems like he just says what he wants to be true and assumes it therefore is, which is a major problem when under oath.

Trump is going to want to take the stand 100% though, and it’s unclear if he will let his lawyers stop him. They have succeeded in the past, but he despises them for it and chafes at the idea of not being able to tell his story, and the more it happens the more resisting he becomes the next time.

We could very easily see perjury charges if he isn’t smart about this.

They can happen in either order.

In New York State, you can be arrested for a felony without an indictment, if the police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime. The charging document is called a Felony Complaint. After the arrest, unless a disposition can be worked out between the DA's office and the defense (such as a guilty plea or reduced charges), the only way for the case to proceed to trial is via indictment. You cannot go to trial in New York on a Felony Complaint.

Alternatively, if a felony is committed, the DA's office can choose to present evidence to the Grand Jury and secure an indictment before the target is arrested, it's known as a De Novo indictment. After the indictment is secured, the defendant is arrested and arraigned on the indictment and the case proceeds exactly the same as if the defendant had already been arrested on a felony complaint.

The Thing about grand jury's are that they are given almost unlimited investigative power, via the ability to subpoena people and things.

But 5 is less than 3!

EDIT: Why am I being downvotee? 3!=6>5

Are the grand jury random people from the US?

Do they all have to agree on the indictment or would it also be an indictment if only, say 6 out of 10 grand jury members, think the person should be investigated?

“Indictment: a formal accusation that someone has committed a crime!”

>Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse.

"I worked on that cross-examination for six months and then he... just... tweeted it out." - Lead Prosecutor, probably.

I laughed very hard at this. Thankyou.

[removed]

It means you had Soul Level 99

48 vitality 66 endurance 12 attunement 16 strength 10 dexterity

Giants giants giants Father mask Chaos two hander Grass crest shield Black flame

It means you pwned some noobz on PVP and became a legend.

In the UK we don't have the same process. Rather than have a prosecution go to a jury, without hearing a defence, and allow them to decide if there is a case to answer we have the CPS (England and Wales) or Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) who make those decisions on whether a case has sufficient evidence to go ahead.

Only for extremely large values of 2.

CPS in England / Wales.

Procurator Fiscal in Scotland.

[removed]

Rule #4

It's going to be true from 11 o'clock to 13 o'clock every fifth wednesday, so be sure to adjust your travel plans accordingly

They will probably have to settle for people that knows that being an a-hole isn't automatically the same as being a criminal. Big risk of a hung jury though, with one or another sneaking in with a hidden agenda.

[removed]

.........dangit

thanks!

u/Welpe & u/huskersax, thanks for the answers as well!

I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential. This is the first time that it honesty looks possible that he will be convicted of something. Even if the prosecutor has some very strong evidence (Which it increasingly looks like is true), you never know anything for certain when it comes down to a jury. One person with a different impression of the evidence or beliefs about the president could be what keeps him out of prison.

>I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential.

Neither hopeful, nor a fan. Just an interested non-American.

Fwiw though, I think Trump was a test for America, and America failed.

FYI this is what it means in America.

Admittedly, given the current, ahem, political climate, this is almost certainly the answer the OP was looking for. But it's worth noting that this answer is only true for precisely two jurisdictions: The United States and Liberia.

No other countries have grand juries.

And how much is 1x1?

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Ah, so many things vary by state. I guess that's generally a good thing! Thanks for the explanation.

Police can always arrest and detain you if they believe you committed a crime. There is a limit on how long they can hold you this way without an arrest warrant from a judge, though. They have to arraign you as soon as possible in that scenario. Which is why you really don't want to get picked up on a Friday because you coukd end up sitting in a holding cell until Monday and if the holding cells fill up they can book you into jail until your arraignment. Then, even if they take you to court Monday morning, you might sit there all day only for them to never make it to your docket and send you back to where they were holding you until the next day.

People with money and good lawyers will get their docket bumped up the line or even work deals with a judge after hours to get you released on bail or on your own recognizance until your arraignment.

A judge can issue an arrest warrant on their own, but when a grand jury is convened and issues an indictment, the judge presiding over the grand jury will ALWAYS issue an arrest warrant.

I am not a lawyer. This is all information I've picked up from watching police procedurals, true crime and forensic shows/documentaries, and reading about the prison industrial complex.

You must watch Fox News

I agree that the reason grand jury has such a high indictment rare is definitely related to the fact they probably won't call for grand jury without evidence to cause a high indictment rate.

Yeah, on second thought I don't think these are serious enough crimes that he'd consider fleeing the country and he's enough of a narcissist to think he can beat anything they throw at him.

If it was a murder charge or something that might see him bankrupt and in prison the rest of his life that would be a different story.

If it starts going badly for him I bet you anything he runs for Russia and takes asylum, though.

1. Donald Trump is no longer president. There are a ton of potential legal issues with charging a sitting US president with a crime. It opens up a can of legal worms, basically.
2. This is a state case. This can't be pardoned away in the future. Pardons can only happen on the federal level. Nixon got pardoned by Ford, which is some BS IMO, but it happened.
3. There was enough evidence to produce an indictment. That's already a big deal. Its just not some hearsay or circumstantial evidence.
4. Anybody going after a former president is going to face significant backlash. They're not just doing it casually. If the evidence isn't airtight, careers might be ruined.

Depending on the jurisdiction, some grand juries only need a 66% agreement rate and some only need a 75% agreement rate.