Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Iqbal for the Accused? A Civil Rationale for Dismissing Conclusory Criminal Indictments
By Robert L. Weinberg
In a leading case on the sufficiency of federal indictments, the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
"[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federal criminal statute is often sufficient. …" United States v. Resendiz-Ponce1
Resendiz-Poncz, an 8-1 decision (authored by Justice Stevens) handed down in January 2007, also reaffirmed United States v. Debrow2 — the Court’s initial decision construing Rule 7(c)(1) of the then-newly adopted Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In Debrow, the Court held that an indictment is sufficient if it tracks the language of the charging statute “which embodies all the elements of the crime.”3
Four months after Resendiz-Ponce reaffirmed the rule that a criminal indictment is ordinarily sufficient if it merely tracks the language of the criminal statute, the Supreme Court (over the dissent of Justice Stevens) applied a stricter pleading standard — under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — to a civil complaint that tracked the language
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.