Investigation

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

A federal investigation is the stage before anyone is charged: agents and a federal prosecutor build a case, and at the end of it the prosecutor decides whether to seek an indictment, file an information, or close the file. Most people find out they are in one by accident — a letter, a subpoena, a search warrant, a phone call from an agent, or a colleague mentioning that someone came to ask about them.

This is step 1 of seven in the federal court process. The step before this one is the government’s own decision to open a case, which happens without notice to you; the step after is pretrial — arrest, first appearance, and the fight over release.

This page is written for the person who has just learned they may be a target, and for the family member reading over their shoulder. It explains what the words on the letter mean, what tools the government is using, how long this takes, what a defense lawyer does with the time, and — the part people get wrong most often — what makes an investigation worse.

Target, subject, or witness: the three words that decide what happens next

Federal prosecutors sort the people connected to an investigation into three categories, and which one you are in changes almost everything about how your lawyer handles the case. The definitions come from the Justice Manual, the Department of Justice’s own internal handbook — and it is important to be precise about what that is. The Justice Manual is Department policy, not law. It says so itself: it “provides internal DOJ guidance” and “is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal” (JM 1-1.200). No judge will order a prosecutor to reclassify you, and no motion lies to enforce these definitions. They matter because they tell you how the prosecutor is thinking.

Under JM 9-11.151, a “target” is “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” A “subject” is defined far more loosely: “a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” A witness, in ordinary usage, is someone the government believes has information and no criminal exposure of their own.

	Target	Subject	Witness
What DOJ policy says the status means	Substantial evidence links you to a crime and the prosecutor regards you as a putative defendant (JM 9-11.151)	Your conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation — no evidentiary threshold stated	Not a defined DOJ category; in practice, someone with information whose own conduct is not under scrutiny
What you are likely to receive	A target letter, or a grand jury subpoena with an “Advice of Rights” form attached; sometimes an agent visit or a search warrant first	A grand jury subpoena — for documents, testimony, or both — also carrying the “Advice of Rights” form under DOJ policy	A grand jury subpoena or an interview request; no advice-of-rights form is required by policy for a pure witness
Can you be indicted on the current record?	Yes. “Putative defendant” is the prosecutor’s own word for it	Not on the evidence the prosecutor has today, but a subject can be reclassified a target at any time and often is	Not on the current record — but a witness who lies becomes a defendant on a new offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001
May you be offered immunity?	Rarely. Formal immunity is for people the government wants testimony from, not people it intends to charge	Sometimes — a subject who can testify against a target is exactly who a § 6002 order is designed for	Occasionally, where a witness has enough incidental exposure to assert the Fifth Amendment
What a defense lawyer does first	Contacts the prosecutor, learns the theory and the charging posture, protects records, and decides whether a pre-indictment presentation or a proffer makes sense	Presses to learn whether the client is a subject or an unnamed target, negotiates the scope of the subpoena, and prepares for reclassification	Confirms the client is not a subject in disguise, prepares them for testimony, and keeps them out of an unrepresented interview

Two things about that table deserve emphasis. First, the labels move. A prosecutor who calls your lawyer to say you are “just a subject” is describing today’s evidence, not making a promise. Nothing in the Justice Manual prevents reclassification, and no procedural step marks it — you can be a subject on Monday and a target on Friday without anyone telling you.

Second, an officer or employee of a company under investigation is not automatically a target. JM 9-11.151 says so in terms: “An officer or employee of an organization which is a target is not automatically considered a target even if such officer’s or employee’s conduct contributed to the commission of the crime by the target organization.” That single sentence is the reason employees at companies under investigation need their own counsel rather than relying on the company’s lawyers — the company’s interests and the employee’s diverge the moment the company decides to cooperate. If that is your situation, see our page on independent counsel for employees in an internal investigation.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: The first substantive call in a pre-indictment case is usually to the Assistant United States Attorney, and the questions are always the same three: what is my client’s status, what statutes are you looking at, and is there a charging deadline I should know about. The answers are not binding on anyone, and a prosecutor may decline to give them. But the way they are declined is itself information, and it shapes whether the next move is a proffer, a written pre-indictment submission, or silence.

What a federal target letter actually says — and what it does not say

A target letter is a letter from an Assistant United States Attorney telling you that you are a target of a federal grand jury investigation. It is not a charge, not an arrest warrant, and not a court document. Nothing has been filed. But it is the clearest signal the federal government sends before it indicts, and it means a prosecutor has already concluded there is substantial evidence linking you to a crime.

A target letter typically does four things. It states that a federal grand jury is investigating possible violations of specified federal criminal statutes, usually by section number. It identifies you as a target of that investigation. It advises you of your rights — in the language DOJ policy prescribes for grand jury witnesses at JM 9-11.151: that you “may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you,” that “anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding,” and that if you have retained counsel, “the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel.” And it usually invites you, or your lawyer, to contact the prosecutor.

Some target letters also offer the chance to testify before the grand jury. That is DOJ policy, not a right. JM 9-11.153 says that where a target is not subpoenaed and does not ask to testify, “the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury.” The same provision lists when notification is not appropriate: “in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.” Read those two sentences together and you have the honest answer to the question everyone asks: not getting a target letter tells you nothing. People are indicted without ever receiving one, and it violates no rule.

What a target letter does not mean

It does not mean you will be charged. It does not mean the grand jury has voted. It does not mean the prosecutor has decided anything final — under JM 9-27.220, a prosecutor “should commence or recommend federal prosecution” only where the conduct “constitutes a federal offense” and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction,” and even then may decline if “the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest,” if “the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction,” or if “there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” That is DOJ policy, not law, and it is expressly non-enforceable — but it is the framework inside which the decision is actually made, and it is the framework a good pre-indictment submission is written against.

The decision a target letter forces

There is exactly one: retain counsel, and stop handling this yourself. Two specific instructions follow from that, and they are the two people ignore.

Do not call the agent or the prosecutor back yourself. Every word of that conversation becomes evidence, it is not recorded by you, and an agent’s later written summary of it is what a jury will hear. There is no upside available to an unrepresented person in that call that a lawyer cannot obtain more safely.

Do not decide that the letter is a misunderstanding you can clear up. The most damaging federal cases we see against otherwise unexposed people are built on the explanation, not the underlying conduct. The federal government does not need to prove the original offense to convict you of lying about it. More on that below.

If you have received one, our page on federal target letters covers the practical response in more detail, and what a federal indictment is and how one is returned covers the step that may follow.

The tools a federal investigation actually uses, in the order you usually encounter them

Federal investigations are not one thing. They are a sequence of tools, and which tool you are looking at tells you roughly where in the sequence you are.

The covert stage, which you are not supposed to see

Most federal cases spend their longest period entirely out of sight. Agents subpoena bank records and phone records from third parties, obtain email and cloud content from providers, work informants and cooperating witnesses, record calls and meetings, and build a documentary spine before anyone knocks on a door. You will typically learn nothing during this stage. The most common early indicators are indirect: a bank or employer mentions receiving a records request, a colleague says they were interviewed, a business partner suddenly stops returning calls, or a customer says agents asked about your transactions.

None of those is proof of anything, and none of them means charges are coming. They mean it is time to talk to a lawyer while you still have options, rather than after a decision has been made.

Grand jury subpoenas — documents and testimony are different things

A federal grand jury is the body that decides whether to charge. It has 16 to 23 members, and it “may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur” (Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1), 6(f)). It works through subpoenas, and there are two kinds. A subpoena duces tecum commands production of records; a subpoena ad testificandum commands a person to appear and testify. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17, a subpoena “must state the court’s name and the title of the proceeding, include the seal of the court, and command the witness to attend and testify at the time and place the subpoena specifies,” and “may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates.” The court “may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive” on a motion “made promptly.”

Two practical points that competitors leave out. First, receiving a subpoena for documents is not the same as being a target — third parties with no exposure receive them constantly. But under DOJ policy an “Advice of Rights” form is appended to subpoenas served on a target or subject, so the presence of that form on your subpoena is itself information about your status. Second, a grand jury witness is not sworn to secrecy. The secrecy obligation in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2) binds “a grand juror,” “an interpreter,” “a court reporter,” “an operator of a recording device,” “a person who transcribes recorded testimony,” “an attorney for the government,” and persons receiving disclosure under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii) — and the rule states that “no obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).” The witness is not on that list. You may tell your own lawyer everything you were asked. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. Our page on responding to a federal grand jury subpoena goes through the mechanics.

Search warrants under Rule 41

A search warrant is a judicial order, and the rule that governs it is Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. A magistrate judge “must issue the warrant if there is probable cause to search for and seize a person or property or to install and use a tracking device.” The warrant “must command the officer to execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than 14 days,” to “execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes execution at another time,” and to return the warrant to the designated magistrate judge.

Two provisions of Rule 41 matter enormously on the morning of a search and are almost never mentioned to the people affected:

• You are entitled to paper. “The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.” Keep both. Photograph them. They are the first documents your lawyer will want, because the warrant’s attachments define what agents were authorized to take.
• An inventory is required. “An officer present during the execution of the warrant must prepare and verify an inventory of any property seized,” in the presence of another officer and the person from whom the property was taken, or of “at least one other credible person” if either is absent.

And there is a remedy for property taken and kept: under Rule 41(g), “a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return,” filed “in the district where the property was seized.” If the court grants it, “the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.” That is a live tool for a business whose servers or a professional whose files have been seized and who cannot operate without them — and it is available before anyone is charged.

Whether the search was lawful in the first place is a different question, litigated by a motion to suppress. Suppression is a pretrial motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C) and we cover it on the trial page, not here. During an investigation, the thing to do about a search is preserve the paperwork and say nothing.

The knock on the door

An agent appearing at your home or workplace and asking to “just clear something up” is an investigative tool, not a courtesy. You are usually not under arrest, which means you are free to decline, and no warning is required because it is not custodial interrogation. What you say is admissible, and the record of it will be the agent’s report — not a transcript, not a recording you control, and not your memory of it.

Two sentences, said calmly, end that conversation without making anything worse: “I’m not going to answer questions without my lawyer. Please give me your card and my lawyer will call you.” Then do exactly that. Declining an interview is not evidence of guilt, is not obstruction, and cannot be charged.

Proffer sessions and the “queen for a day” letter

A proffer session is a meeting at which you, with your lawyer, tell federal prosecutors and agents what you know, under a written agreement about how your statements may be used. The agreement is often nicknamed a “queen for a day” letter. It is a contract, not a statute, and its terms vary from district to district and prosecutor to prosecutor.

Here is what people misunderstand about it. The baseline protection is Federal Rule of Evidence 410, which makes “a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority” inadmissible against the defendant “if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.” But that protection is waivable, and standard proffer letters waive part of it. In United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995), the Supreme Court held that “absent some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, an agreement to waive the exclusionary provisions of the plea-statement Rules is valid and enforceable” (opinion). The practical consequence: a typical proffer letter permits the government to use what you said to impeach you if you testify inconsistently at trial, and to use derivative leads it develops from what you said. What it usually does not permit is direct use of your words in the government’s case-in-chief.

That is why a proffer is a strategic decision with real cost, not a free conversation, and why nobody should walk into one without counsel who has read that particular office’s letter. Our page on federal proffer agreements explains the terms; the sentencing consequence of cooperation, if any, is a separate question governed by USSG §5K1.1 and the government’s motion.

Formal immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003 — and why it is not what people think

There are two very different things people call “immunity.”

Formal, court-ordered immunity is created by statute. Under 18 U.S.C. § 6002, when a witness refuses to testify before a federal court or grand jury on Fifth Amendment grounds and the presiding officer communicates an immunity order, “the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”

Read that carefully. It is use and derivative-use immunity, not immunity from prosecution. You can still be prosecuted for the underlying conduct if the government proves its case from wholly independent sources. And the exception is total: immunity is no protection at all if you lie.

The procedure is in 18 U.S.C. § 6003. The district court issues the order “upon the request of the United States attorney,” and the United States attorney may request it only “with the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Assistant Attorney General,” and only where in his judgment “the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest” and the person “has refused or is likely to refuse to testify.” Two consequences follow. Immunity requires Main Justice sign-off, so it is not something a line prosecutor grants on the spot; and it is compelled testimony, which means once the order issues, refusing to answer is contempt.

Informal or “letter” immunity is something else entirely: a written promise from a particular United States Attorney’s Office not to use your statements in a particular way. It binds that office by its terms. It is not a statute, it is not entered by a court, and its reach beyond that office is a question of contract interpretation. Never treat a letter as if it were a § 6002 order.

How long a federal investigation lasts, honestly

Federal investigations commonly run months to years before anyone is charged, and the government is not obliged to tell you where in that process you are. The outer boundary is the statute of limitations, not any deadline that applies to the investigators.

The general rule is 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a): “Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.” The clock runs from the commission of the offense, not from the date the government learned of it.

Congress has written longer periods for particular categories, and white-collar cases very often sit in one of them. The one practitioners see most is 18 U.S.C. § 3293, which sets 10 years for a violation of, or conspiracy to violate, 18 U.S.C. §§ 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033 or 1344, and for mail or wire fraud under §§ 1341 or 1343 “if the offense affects a financial institution.” A fraud case that looks time-barred under the five-year rule frequently is not, because a bank was involved somewhere in the transaction chain. That is a question for counsel and the specific statute charged, not a calculation to run at home.

Two more points about time, and neither is comforting:

• Nothing in the Speedy Trial Act limits how long the government may investigate. The Act’s 30-day clock at 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) requires that “any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges.” That clock starts at arrest on the federal charge. Before that, there is no clock but the limitations period.
• Silence from the government is not evidence the matter has gone away. Cases go quiet for reasons that have nothing to do with you: a cooperator’s schedule, a parallel investigation, an agent’s caseload, a change of prosecutor, a wait for records from abroad. The file is not closed until someone with authority says it is closed, and there is no form for that.

For the same reason, we will not predict a timeline for your matter and you should be skeptical of anyone who does. What your lawyer can do is find out whether a charging decision is near, which is a different and more answerable question.

The four things that make a federal investigation worse

Almost every self-inflicted wound in a pre-indictment case falls into one of four categories. All four are avoidable, and all four are common.

1. Talking to a federal agent without a lawyer

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination lets you decline. There is no penalty for declining, but say so expressly: in this posture, silence without an express invocation of the privilege can be used against you at trial.

What there is — and this is the single most important sentence on this page — is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes a false statement to a federal agent a felony even though you were never under oath. The statute reaches “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” makes “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation,” and the penalty is “imprisoned not more than 5 years,” rising to eight years for offenses involving terrorism or certain offenses under chapters 109A, 109B, 110 or 117 or § 1591. There is no oath requirement anywhere in the text.

And there is no “exculpatory no” exception. In Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), a union officer answered “no” when two agents asked at his home whether he had received money from a company employing his union’s members; the Supreme Court held that § 1001 “covers ‘any’ false statement,” that “the word ‘no’ in response to a question assuredly makes a ‘statement,'” and that “neither the text nor the spirit of the Fifth Amendment confers a privilege to lie” (opinion). Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence described exactly the dynamic defense lawyers see: agents arriving unannounced, already holding the records that make the answer false, asking one question and leaving — “when the interview ended, a federal offense had been completed.”

The lesson is narrow and absolute. Silence is protected. Lying is a separate crime with its own five-year maximum, and it can be charged even where the conduct under investigation is never charged at all. For the related offense of false testimony under oath, see our page on perjury.

2. Destroying, deleting, or “cleaning up” anything

The moment you suspect a federal investigation, your document-retention obligations change and your exposure changes with them.

18 U.S.C. § 1519 punishes “whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States … or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case.” The maximum is 20 years — four times the maximum for lying to an agent. And note the phrase “in relation to or contemplation of”: the statute does not require that a proceeding be pending when you act.

18 U.S.C. § 1512 reaches the same ground from another direction. Section 1512(c) punishes whoever “corruptly … alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” also with a 20-year maximum — and § 1512(f)(1) states flatly that “an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.”

In practice this means: suspend automatic deletion. Email retention policies, phone-message auto-purge, cloud sync that overwrites, accounting software that rolls off old records, a routine shredding contract — every one of those becomes a hazard the day you learn of an investigation. Tell your lawyer what systems auto-delete, and do it in the first conversation. Preserving too much has never hurt anyone. Preserving too little has ended careers that the underlying conduct would not have touched.

3. Talking to other people who may be witnesses

Comparing recollections with a colleague, a co-owner, or a family member feels like the natural thing to do. In a federal investigation it is dangerous in two distinct ways.

The conversation is not privileged, which means the other person can be asked about it and will be. And depending on what is said, it can be charged. Section 1512(b) reaches whoever “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person,” with intent to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding” or to cause a person to “withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding.” Twenty-year maximum, again, and no pending proceeding required.

Route it through counsel. Lawyers can and do talk to each other about parallel exposure, under joint-defense or common-interest arrangements that are designed for exactly this. Clients talking directly is how a document case becomes an obstruction case. On the privilege that protects your conversations with your own lawyer — and how it can be lost — see our explainer on attorney-client privilege.

4. Assuming the civil or regulatory matter is separate from the criminal one

Many federal investigations run on two tracks. A civil investigative demand, an SEC investigation, an IRS examination, an inspector general’s audit, or a licensing-board inquiry can all sit alongside a grand jury investigation of the same conduct — sometimes with the same underlying agency referral. Statements given in the civil or regulatory proceeding are not sealed off from the criminal one, and testimony given to a regulator has ended more than one case before the criminal side ever asked a question. If you have a civil or administrative matter and any reason to think a criminal investigation exists, the two must be handled by lawyers who are coordinating.

How a federal investigation ends

There are five realistic endings, and only two of them involve you being charged.

1. Nothing happens and nobody tells you. The most common ending for people at the edges of an investigation. There is no closing letter as of right, no docket entry, and no notification. In some circumstances a lawyer can obtain confirmation that a client is no longer a target; often the answer is simply that the limitations period runs out.

1. A declination. The prosecutor affirmatively decides not to charge. JM 9-27.220 sets out the framework — DOJ policy, not law, and expressly unenforceable — under which prosecution may be declined even where the evidence would support it: no substantial federal interest, effective prosecution available in another jurisdiction, or an adequate non-criminal alternative. A written declination is not guaranteed and is not always given.

1. A pre-indictment resolution. The case resolves before any charge is publicly filed — by agreement on charges, by a deferred or non-prosecution agreement in some corporate contexts, or by a civil or administrative disposition instead. This is where pre-indictment defense work pays, because after an indictment the negotiating landscape changes.

1. An information. A charge filed by the prosecutor rather than voted by a grand jury. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a), an offense “must be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable … by death; or by imprisonment for more than one year” — but Rule 7(b) allows an information where “the defendant—in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant’s rights—waives prosecution by indictment.” Waiving indictment is a defendant’s own choice, made on the record, and it is the ordinary route into a negotiated pre-indictment plea. Note the threshold is the statutory maximum, not the sentence anyone expects.

1. An indictment. The grand jury returns a true bill, and the case becomes public. From here the sequence begins in earnest: arrest or summons, first appearance, and the fight over release. That is pretrial.

What a defense lawyer actually does during an investigation

The pre-indictment period is the only stage of a federal case in which the outcome can still be no case. That is why the work here looks different from the work after charges.

Learn the posture. Contact the prosecutor and, where appropriate, the case agent’s supervisor. Establish status, statutes under consideration, whether a charging decision is imminent, whether there is a grand jury sitting, and whether the office will hear a submission.

Lock down the record. Issue a litigation hold in writing, identify and suspend every automatic-deletion process, and secure devices, servers and cloud accounts. This is the single most time-sensitive task and it is not optional.

Reconstruct the facts independently. Interview the client at length. Collect and review the documents the government is collecting, and the ones it is not. Understand the transaction, the company, the medical practice or the tax position well enough to explain it — because the pre-indictment argument is usually not “you can’t prove it,” it is “this is what actually happened.”

Decide about the client’s voice. Whether to proffer, whether to submit a written pre-indictment presentation, whether to accept an invitation to testify before the grand jury, or whether to say nothing at all. Each of these is a considered strategic decision with real downside; none of them should be made by reflex, and the default in a document-heavy case is very often silence.

Prepare for the worst outcome while working for the best. If an indictment is coming, the difference between an arranged surrender and a 6 a.m. arrest team at the house is a phone call your lawyer makes in advance. So is the difference between arriving at the detention hearing with a release package prepared and arriving with nothing.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: The most valuable hour in a pre-indictment case is usually spent on records, not on argument. Before anyone can tell a prosecutor a story, someone has to know what the documents say — including the ones the client forgot existed and the ones an automatic retention policy is about to delete. A pre-indictment submission that gets read is built on the government’s own evidence, read more carefully than the government has read it yet.

Where this sits in the federal case sequence

This page is step 1 of seven. The step before it is the government’s own decision to open an investigation, which happens internally and without notice to you. The step after it is pretrial — arrest or summons, first appearance under Rule 5, and the detention hearing that decides whether you fight the case from home or from a jail.

The full path is set out on the federal court process hub: investigation → pretrial → plea agreements → trial → presentence report → sentencing basics → after sentencing.

For the offenses that federal investigations most often produce, see federal offenses and charges, and for the difference between a federal and a state prosecution — different investigators, different rules, different sentencing system — see federal versus state.

Speaking with a federal criminal defense lawyer

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019, with more than 20 years of federal and appellate criminal defense experience and a national practice run on an intentionally small caseload. We take pre-indictment matters, and the earlier the better: the tools described on this page — preserving records, learning the charging posture, making a submission before a decision is final — are only available while the decision is still open.

If you have received a target letter, a grand jury subpoena, or a visit from federal agents, you can contact us to talk it through. Nothing on this page is legal advice, no outcome can be promised, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. More about the firm and how we verify what we publish is at about us and how we verify.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Investigation Stage

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026