I am a bit of a law junkie, but not a lawyer by any means. With the Bob Menendez superseding indictment today an old question came up. I feel like I should know this but…
Does a superseding indictment have to be a more “serious” charge? (Sorry for the terminology) this may be a bad example but if someone had already been charged with burglary could a superseding indictment then be unlawful entry?
NAL either. I think that superseding indictments are created because they found additional crimes since the first indictment, or because the prosecution decided to add charges that they were withholding. Like say the defendant agrees to dime on their criminal conspirators in exchange for leniency or not being charged with certain things, and then changes their mind afterwards - a superseding indictment can be filed that then charges the defendant with the full slate of crimes.
That makes sense, and was where I was leaning, but I always, in the back of my head, wondered, if there is some rule, or precedent about it needing to meet some test of seriousness. Obviously if someone is up for murder, it would be silly to supersede with trespassing, but I am curious as to whether there is a legal test in such cases.
