Fill and Sign the Indictment Mississippi Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF       COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VS. CAUSE NUMBER             DEFENDANT MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT COMES NOW,       , by counsel, and moves this Court pursu ant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 3, §§ 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 & 32 of the Mississippi Constitution to quash the indict ment. In support of his/her motion,       states as follows: 1. The indictment fails to supply the information required by Miss. Code Ann. § 99 - 7 - 3 , and the indictment is so vague and ambiguous and does not apprise the defendant of the charge against him/her with sufficient specificity to permit him/her to adequately prepare with his/her defen ses, and to plead any judgment in the instant cases as a bar to any later proceedings against him/her based on the same alleged offense in contraven tion of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the states by the Four - teenth Amendment and Article 3, § 22 of the Missis sippi Constitu tion. 2. The indictment purports to charge the defen dant with capital murder but alleges no aggravating circumstances which would warrant imposition of the death penalty, which is the argument of capital murder. See , Burchfield v. State , 277 So.2d 723 (Miss. 1973) (must charge every element of the of fense). 3. The judge failed to charge the grand jury as re quired by Miss. R. Crim. Pro. § 2.01 , and recom mend ed to the grand jury that they target the defendant in this case. Necaise v. Logan , 341 So.2d 91 (Miss. 1976). 4. The indictment is predicated upon matters, facts, and things illegally and improperly obtained and presented to the grand jury and gave rise to the return of the indictment herein, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amend ments to the United States Constitution and Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27 of the Missis sippi Constitution. See , e.g. , United States v. Basurto , 497 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Estepa , 471 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir. 1972). 5. The defendant was not taken before a Magistrate forth with. See Miss. Unif. Crim. R. Cir. Ct. § 1.04 . Wherefore, for these reasons and such other reasons as may be adduced at a hearing hereon,       requests that this Court quash the indictment in this cause. Respectfully submitted, By: _________________________       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,       , attorney for       , do hereby certify that I have on this day delivered, by hand, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to This the       day of       20       . _____________________________