Replies

-- But they could hold indictments under seal without arrest or notice for as long as they want to (pending statue of limitation constraint) correct? --

That's a good question, and I don't know there is an answer from a statutory or rules basis. As a practical matter, holding it in that sort of limbo would be pointless UNLESS the purpose was to avoid losing the power to prosecute because of statute of limitations. In that case, I think the courts would frown on holding the indictment sealed/secret from the perp for long, as the point of a statute of limitiations is to "clear the perp," rather than hold them in limbo for the rest of their lives.

-- And, if they wanted to coordinate arrests or wait on further investigations, they could do that, yes? --

Yes. But I think you are swinging wildly on the "wait on further investigations" part. If there is enough evidence to indict, then indict. If not, it is (theoretically) improper to indict.

I'd love to see a graph of "how many sealed indictments are there TODAY. Not how many were filed today, how many exist today. Track that over a period of time.

It might be that half of the total number of cases filed, are under seal at first. How many federal "defendants filed" in federal distric court a year? FY2016 report says about 72,000.