An indictment is not a verdict. A dropped charge is not an acquittal. A judge stepping aside is not a judge being fired. These distinctions decide how a story is understood — so we define them, plainly, and link each one to the case where it mattered.
This glossary is growing. Terms are added as our case files raise them.
Arraignment
A defendant's first formal court appearance on criminal charges, where the charges are read and the person enters a plea (usually not guilty at this stage). It's the official start of the court process, not a trial or any finding of guilt.
Why it matters: the plea entered here sets the case on its path; "not guilty" at arraignment is routine and says nothing about the eventual outcome.
See it in a case: Baby Boy Doe — Mansfield, 1985
Indictment
A formal accusation, issued by a grand jury, that there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime and proceed toward trial. An indictment is not a conviction or proof of guilt — it's a decision that the case can move forward.
Why it matters: people often mistake an indictment for a verdict; it only means charges are formally filed.
See it in a case: Baby Boy Doe — Mansfield, 1985
Voir Dire
The jury-selection process, where attorneys and the judge question potential jurors to decide who will serve. The goal is an impartial jury with no disqualifying bias.
Why it matters: which jurors are seated can shape a trial before any evidence is heard.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial · Try the Voir Dire Simulator
Nolle Prosequi (nol-pros)
A formal decision by prosecutors to drop or not pursue specific charges. It can happen because charges are redundant, evidence shifts, or counts are folded into others. It is a prosecutorial choice, not a court finding of innocence.
Why it matters: dropped counts don't mean the case is weak — often they're consolidated.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial
Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility
A defense (the modern Massachusetts framing of what’s commonly called an "insanity defense") arguing that, because of mental illness or defect, the defendant could not understand that their actions were wrong or could not conform their conduct to the law. If accepted, it results in a verdict other than a standard guilty finding, typically leading to commitment/treatment rather than prison.
Why it matters: it is NOT the same as "getting off" — it addresses criminal responsibility, not whether the act occurred.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial
Recusal
When a judge steps aside from a case, voluntarily or on request, usually to avoid an actual or perceived conflict of interest or bias.
Why it matters: recusal changes who hears the case but does not itself decide any issue in it.
See it in a case: The Karmelo Anthony verdict
Recusal vs. Removal
A distinction people frequently get wrong. Recusal is a judge stepping aside from one case; removal is a separate, far rarer process of taking a judge off the bench entirely. A recusal motion is not an attempt to fire a judge.
Why it matters: coverage often blurs these; they are not the same action or the same stakes.
See it in a case: The Karmelo Anthony verdict
Motion for a New Trial
A formal request asking the court to set aside a verdict and hold a new trial, based on claimed legal errors, new evidence, or process problems. Filing one does not undo the conviction; a judge must grant it first, and most are denied.
Why it matters: a filed motion is a request, not a reversal — the original verdict stands unless and until a court rules otherwise.
See it in a case: The Karmelo Anthony verdict
Limiting Instruction
A judge's direction telling jurors they may consider a piece of evidence only for a specific, narrow purpose. It's used when evidence is admissible for one reason but could be misused for another (for example, an emotional recording admitted for its factual content, not to inflame).
Why it matters: it shapes how powerful evidence is allowed to be used.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial
Sequestration (of witnesses)
A court order keeping witnesses out of the courtroom until they testify, so their accounts aren't influenced by hearing others. Sometimes family members are exempted.
Why it matters: it protects testimony from contamination.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial
Pretrial Conference / Hearing
A court session before trial where the judge and attorneys resolve outstanding issues — what evidence is admissible, scheduling, and procedural matters. Rulings here shape what the jury will and won't see.
Why it matters: cases are often "won or lost" in what evidence gets admitted before trial even starts.
See it in a case: The Lindsay Clancy trial · Court Calendar
Forensic Genetic Genealogy (Investigative Genetic Genealogy)
A technique that compares crime-scene DNA against genealogy databases to build family trees and identify potential suspects or unidentified victims. Critically, it generates leads, not courtroom proof — identity is then confirmed by a separate, direct DNA comparison.
Why it matters: it names a direction to investigate; the case is proven by conventional confirmation testing, not the genealogy match itself.
See it in a case: How forensic genetic genealogy actually works · Baby Boy Doe — Mansfield, 1985
Coercive Control
A pattern of behavior used to dominate and limit another person's freedom — monitoring, isolation, intimidation, financial control, threats. Increasingly recognized in law as a form of abuse even without physical violence.
Why it matters: harm often begins here, before any assault, and recognizing it early can be protective.
See it in a case: The Stay Safe guide · What is coercive control?
Protective / Restraining Order
A court order limiting one person's contact with another to prevent harm or harassment. Terms and names vary by state.
Why it matters: violations are themselves offenses and can be evidence of escalation.
See it in a case: The Stay Safe guide
Keep reading: the Resources & Guides library · the Stay Safe guide · how forensic genetic genealogy works · our case files · the court calendar.