So you know. Some people have asked (me or others) why it’s allowed to not use names in indictments at all. Usually when I see a question a few times like that it means others wonder too, but don’t want to ask.
Prior to about the early 70s, unindicted people *would* be named./1
Prior to about the early 70s, unindicted people *would* be named./1
This would be other people the govt thought was guilty or just a witness sometimes. This practice was roundly condemned as abusive because it publicly accused people of crimes, but afforded them no opportunity to clear their names. /2
Like a lot of things, a lot of criminal law & procedure changed quite a bit after 1970. DOJ eventually changed it’s official policy to what it is now -that except in exceptional circumstances- DOJ doesn’t name people it thinks is guilty of crime unless it indicts them. /3
This is to protect the rights & reputations of people who are innocent, might be innocent, or at a minimum are not going to be given an opportunity to defend themselves. But it’s not *publicly* naming them. Their names must be disclosed to the defense lawyers & the court. /4
The whole thing was created to prevent the govt - abusive prosecutors basically - from tainting people for their mere association with the criminal process without due process. /5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
