[dmfdmf]

I am not a lawyer but can't/shouldn't the defense request a dismissal at this point if the prosecutor just admitted it is an on-going investigation? It seems a bit unfair to continue with the case while using the fact that it is an open investigation as a cover to collect more evidence against them. It is unfair because the lawyers for the defense are trying to defend against a moving target.

NB: Not defending Holmes or Balwani but curious about the legal status of the case.

[tptacek]

Don't superseding indictments happen all the time in criminal cases?

[dmfdmf]

I don't know, not a lawyer. It maybe normal procedure but seems a bit unfair.

[tptacek]

Why would that be unfair?

[stevev]

I believe you are guilty, but I don’t have any sufficient evidence(s) yet.

[tptacek]

That's not how a superseding indictment works! A superseding indictment charges more (or different) crimes than the original indictment. The process for obtaining the indictments in the first place is the same.

[URSpider94]

That’s kind of the point of the grand jury. It’s an investigative body. Grand juries are typically convened when investigations reach critical mass, and are then used to issue subpoenas for additional information, leading to an indictment, which then leaves to arrest and trial.

Grand juries are often used for a single charge, but can also be used to supervise a lengthy investigation with multiple charges and multiple defendants (like the ones used by Robert Mueller in his investigations of Russian election interference).

[danielvf]

I'm curious about this as well. I've certainly googled and found cases where additional charges were later added, but I'd love to read a discussion the legality of using the grand jury process to discover evidence for charging people not named in the first indictment.

(https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/superseding-indictment-boyd-m...)