Defendant has been indicted. Judge sets a "probable cause" hearing for tomorrow, even after the explanation that the indictment makes the hearing moot. Any guidance on how to proceed? I'm at a loss as to where to begin b/c it's such a given that once an indictment has been returned there has already been a determination of PC. Am I missing something? It is not a MTS or bail reduction hearing

16.01 says the court shall have an examining trial if no indictment, but it doesn't prohibit one after indictment.
I would be concerned with both this being an examining trial or a Motion to suppress.
I am not sure what the defense motion was for.

Thank you. It was not a defense motion, the judge set the motion sua sponte. He specifically called it a probable cause hearing...to determine probable cause for arrest.

So you have no real notice of the purpose of the hearing or the basis for the "motion" or the relief being contemplated.

Maybe this principle applies:

 In a pretrial setting, there is neither constitutional nor statutory authority for a defendant to test--or for a trial court to determine--the State's cache of evidence to support an element alleged in the indictment. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d at 948; Ex parte Andrews, 814 S.W.2d 839, 841 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. dism'd) ("[T]here is no Texas criminal pretrial procedure to test the sufficiency of the State's evidence."). If the trial court conducts such a hearing, it errs "grievously." Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d at 948.

Just tender a certified copy of the indictment. That's proof of probable cause.

This must be some new BS idea they are floating at criminal defense seminars. I have seen it a couple of times. They just want to get the equivalent of a deposition of your witnesses.

I am wondering what happens if the judge holds the hearing and the state shows up and when called to put on evidence, just rests instead. So the judge finds "no PC." what is the impact of that... since the grand jury has already indicted....

Further- lets say that the State presents the indictment as their only evidence and rests. The judge finds that no PC exists, and dismisses the case.

Would that function as a dismissal with prejudice? Could the NEXT term of the grand jury simply re-indict the exact same case?

So many questions that I don't hope to ever find out the answers to!