Costello v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Criminal Procedure

350 U.S. 359 (1956)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureGrand JuryIndictmentHearsayFifth Amendmenthearsay evidencecompetency of evidencefacially valid indictment

Facts

Costello was indicted for willfully attempting to evade payment of income taxes for 1947, 1948, and 1949 by reporting less income than he and his wife actually received. At trial, the Government presented extensive evidence through many witnesses and exhibits, then used three government agents to summarize that evidence and present computations in a net-worth case. Cross-examination showed that those same three agents were the only witnesses before the grand jury, and they had no firsthand knowledge of the underlying transactions. Costello argued that because the grand jury heard only hearsay evidence, the indictment had to be dismissed.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment forbid requiring a defendant to stand trial on an indictment returned by a grand jury that heard only hearsay evidence? If not, should the Supreme Court nonetheless adopt a supervisory rule allowing federal defendants to challenge such indictments for lack of competent or adequate evidence before the grand jury?

Rule

Neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits, and it may not be challenged on the ground that it is based solely on hearsay or otherwise inadequate or incompetent evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Chicago, Malik Turner is indicted for wire fraud. The only witness before the grand jury was an analyst from Lakefront Financial Crimes Unit, who testified entirely from customer complaints and business records gathered by other employees and had no firsthand knowledge of the transactions.

Malik moves to dismiss the indictment before trial solely because the grand jury heard only hearsay. There is no claim that the grand jury was improperly selected or biased, and the indictment is valid on its face. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The motion should be denied. The majority rule is that neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence on which a grand jury must act. Thus, when the grand jury is legally constituted and unbiased and the indictment is valid on its face, the indictment is enough to require trial on the merits even if the grand jury heard only hearsay evidence.