Reed v. Com., 706 S.E.2d 854

On Oct. 4, 2004, a Stafford County grand jury presented eight charges against Reed arising from a robbery and murder, each labeled as a Grand Jury Indictment or Direct Grand Jury Indictment with a true bill endorsement, but none signed by the grand jury foreman.
A capias was issued the same day after the Commonwealth sought Reed's arrest, stating the indictments were handed down by the grand jury that day; Reed was arraigned Nov. 1, 2004 with defense counsel present.
At trial, Reed pled guilty to three charges and the jury convicted him on the remaining five; sentencing occurred June 19, 2005, with life and other terms and fines totaling $200,000; no objections to the indictments were raised during trial or sentencing.
Reed pursued direct appeals; the Court of Appeals denied on a per curiam basis; this Court subsequently denied a further appeal, with convictions final by March 19, 2007.
Reed later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance for failing to verify indictments lacking foreman signatures and that the prosecution was void; the habeas court dismissed, calling the defect a technical omission.
On July 23, 2009 Reed moved in circuit court to vacate convictions arguing the unsigned indictments were nullities; the circuit court denied the motion, holding the foreman’s endorsement was a formality and the indictments were returned in open court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are unsigned foreman signatures on indictments fatal defects?	Reed contends indictments are nullities without foreman signature.	Commonwealth argues the defect is only in form and cured when returned as true bills in open court.	Indictments valid; signing not required when returned in open court.
Does absence of foreman signature render judgment void under constitutional standards?	Indictments' defect is so fatal as to violate the Constitution, invalidating judgments.	Defect is a formality; not a constitutional defect after open-court return.	Absence of foreman's signature is a form defect, not a constitutional defect; judgments valid.

Price v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 846 (1872) (open-court return and true bill endorsement validate indictment)
White v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. (29 Gratt.) 824 (1878) (endorsed true bill not necessary if returned in open court)
Simmons v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 156 (1892) (indictment must be presented in open court to be valid)
Hall v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 554 (1925) (grand jury proceedings underpin validity of indictment)
Crump v. Commonwealth, 92 Va. 833 (1895) (historic pedigree of indictment validity when presented in court)
Lazier v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. (10 Gratt.) 708 (1853) (form defects in indictment addressed by statute)