Legal Definitions - constructive amendment of indictment

A constructive amendment of an indictment occurs when the evidence presented at trial or the instructions given to the jury effectively broadens or alters the charges against a defendant in a way that differs significantly from what the grand jury originally approved in the formal indictment. Unlike a formal amendment, where the indictment document itself is physically changed, a constructive amendment happens implicitly during the trial proceedings. This is a serious legal error because it violates a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on charges that a grand jury has formally found sufficient evidence for. It essentially means the defendant is tried for a crime that was not actually presented to or approved by the grand jury.

• Example 1: Changing the Means of Committing a Crime

  Imagine a grand jury indicts a defendant for bank robbery, specifically stating that the robbery was committed "by displaying a firearm." During the trial, the prosecutor presents evidence and the judge instructs the jury that they can convict the defendant if they find the robbery was committed "by threatening to use a dangerous weapon," even if no firearm was displayed, but perhaps a knife or a bomb threat was involved. The indictment was never formally changed to reflect this broader method.

  How this illustrates the term: Here, the core crime (bank robbery) remains the same, but the specific *means* by which it was allegedly committed, an essential element of the offense as charged by the grand jury, has been altered or broadened at trial. The grand jury approved charges based on the use of a firearm, not any dangerous weapon. The defendant is effectively tried for a different version of the crime than what the grand jury authorized.

• Example 2: Expanding the Scope of a Conspiracy

  A grand jury indicts a defendant for participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy that operated "between January 1, 2022, and June 30, 2022," and involved specific individuals. At trial, the prosecutor introduces evidence and the jury instructions allow for conviction based on the defendant's involvement in a conspiracy that extended throughout all of 2022 and included a much wider network of participants, some of whom were not mentioned in the original indictment.

  How this illustrates the term: The trial proceedings have constructively amended the indictment by significantly expanding the timeframe and the scope of the alleged criminal enterprise beyond what the grand jury considered and approved. The defendant is now facing charges for a broader conspiracy than the one for which they were originally indicted.

• Example 3: Altering the Legal Theory of Fraud

  A grand jury indicts a defendant for wire fraud, alleging that the defendant "knowingly made false statements regarding the value of a company's assets" to induce investment. At trial, the prosecutor primarily argues, and the jury instructions permit a conviction, based on the defendant's "failure to disclose material information" about the company's liabilities, even if no active false statements were made about asset value. The indictment was never formally amended to include the non-disclosure theory.

  How this illustrates the term: While both scenarios involve fraud, the specific legal theory and the essential elements of the crime presented to the jury at trial (failure to disclose) are distinct from those approved by the grand jury (making false statements). The defendant is effectively being tried on a different legal basis for the fraud than what was originally charged in the indictment.