See also: ARRESTS; CONVICTIONS; INDICTMENTS
NON-PROSECUTION.

1.  As Impeachment Generally

That a witness has been prosecuted for a crime is not admissible to impeach the  witnesses’ character –only convictions are admissible for this purpose.{footnote}FRE 609; United States v. Farid, 733 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1984); Rizzo v. United States, 304 F.2d 810 (8th Cir. 1962) (fact of indictment inadmissible).
La. Rev. Stat. 15:495; People v. Pratt, 759 P.2d 676, 681 (Colo. 1988) (dictum); People v. Reyes, 102 Ill. App. 3d 829, 429 N.E.2d 1277 (1981); Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 388 N.E.2d 648 (1979)(by statute); People v. Torres, 51 App. Div.2d 225, 380 N.Y.S.2d 654 (1st Dept. 1976); State v. Hector, 19 Ohio St. 2d 167, 48 Ohio Ops. 2d 199, 249 N.E.2d 912 (1969); Commonwealth v. Ross, 431 Pa. 167, 252 A.2d 661 (1969); Holden v. State, 628 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. 14th Dist. 1982)(criminal charges inadmissible).

CHECK United States v. Etley,  574 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1978).{/footnote}  See ARRESTS; CONVICTIONS. 
Indictments are admissible in some jurisdictions, however, to show bias, motive or interest.{footnote}People v. Reyes, 102 Ill. App. 3d 829, 429 N.E.2d 1277 (1981);{/footnote}  A prosecution witness may be impeached by evidence that a pending indictment has given the witness an incentive to testify favorably for the prosecution.{footnote}Coligan v. United States, 434 A.2d 483, 485 (D.C. App. 1981); Causey v. State, 484 So.2d 1263, 11 FLW 127 (Fal. App. D1 1986), reh. den., quest. certified (Fla. App. D1) 11 FLW 701 and quashed on other grounds, certified quest. ans., 503 So.2d 321, 12 FLW 111; People v. Austin, 123 Ill. App. 3d 788, 463 N.E.2d 444 (2d Dist. 1984).
CHECK Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674, 106 S. Ct. 1431 (1986); Jenkins v. United States, 617 A.2d 529, 531-33 (D.C. 1992). Washington v. United States, 461 A.2d 1037, 1038 (D.C. App. 1983){/footnote}  On the other hand, it has been held that a defense witness may not be impeached by evidence of pending charges on the theory that the charges give the witness a reason to be biased against the prosecution:

Of course, a witness who has ever had criminal charges brought against him, particularly if they proved unfounded, could be thought to harbor a grudge against law enforcement, but the government does not extend its bias theory so widely; it argues only that the fact of present charges gives the witness a motive to testify unfavorably to the government. And the reason, one assumes, is not that such testimony in the case at hand would help the witness in his own unrelated case; it is simply that the immediacy of his role as an accused in the criminal justice process gives him a motive to "get even" with his accuser.
   We view this as too attenuated a theory of relevance, without additional circumstances, to justify a large-scale breach in the rule barring proof of arrests or criminal charges.{footnote}[3400] Williams v. U.S., 642 A.2d 1317, 1322 (D.C. App. 1994).{/footnote}

Relevance of No Indictment

The fact that a person has not been indicted is irrelevant and inadmissible where offered in a civil case to prove that they did not commit an act which is criminal in nature.{footnote}American Home Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, 753 F.2d 321 (3d Cir. 1985)(arson).{/footnote}