"RECURRING AND NATIONALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE: Federal Indictments Often Ignore the Basic Rules of English Grammar"

By Ozel-Bey

The issue presented is not isolated. Federal drug indictments across the country routinely rely on language which ignores the basic rules of English grammar when alleging essential elements of a crime. For example, drug conspiracy charges rely on phrasing that places the key mens rea term "knowingly" inside a future-tense phrase ("to knowingly distribute a controlled substance"), which cannot allege present knowledge of the controlled nature of the substance, as required by law. This practice has become widespread, and courts regularly uphold such indictments by declaring that they "track the statute," without addressing the underlying grammatical impossibility. Here's an example of one such indictment:

"The defendant conspired and agreed to unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distribute a controlled substance."

A conspiracy is an agreement or plan to do something in the future. One can not form a proper or correct sentence by placing "knowingly" in the future-tense.

In recent years, the public has grown more aware of this defect. Many defendants, families, advocacy groups, and even legal scholars have identified that indictments are being drafted in ways that violate the basic rules of English grammar - rules that every juror, every student, and every member of the public is taught in school. When the government mis-instruct jurors as to the requirements of the law, and abandons linguistic accuracy in charging documents, confidence in the fairness of the justice system erodes.

No legal doctrine can repair the damage caused when ordinary people see that the government is permitted to charge a federal felony using a sentence that literally alleges that a defendant planned to possess knowledge he did not yet have, a temporal and logical impossibility.

The Constitution promises that criminal charges must be clear, direct, and accurate. That promise includes adherence to plain meaning of words. As the Supreme Court recognized, the mens rea (knowledge requirement) is not an abstract legalism; it is a fundamental component of human culpability grounded in ordinary language and common sense.

The idea that a person can "agree to knowingly distribute" a substance, before having any knowledge of what that substance is defies both grammar and logic. Adherence to the rules of grammar is non-discretionary, mechanical and absolutely required. When the public sees the federal government regularly using linguistically invalid accusations to secure convictions, it reinforces the perception that justice is indifferent to truth and clarity.

Because this defect surfaces repeatedly in federal drug prosecutions, and because it undermines both constitutional protections and public confidence, intervention is warranted.

Our system is failing.

We, the People, must enforce our own protections guaranteed under Our Constitution!