Direct indictment
19.3%
Median 15.1%
+4.2 pts
Montgomery County Commonwealth's Attorney
3,301 circuit court filings · 2,109 resolved · 2025 calendar year · Volume band A (≥1,000 filings)
At a glance vs. statewide median
Each card pairs Montgomery County's rate with the statewide median across 118 qualifying offices.
Nolle prosequi
19.3%
Median 17.8%
+1.5 pts
Guilty
35.6%
Median 34.9%
+0.7 pts
Trial on contested
0.7%
Median 9.5%
-8.8 pts
Direct indictment is % of filings; nolle prosequi, guilty, and trial-on-contested are % of resolved cases. Trial-on-contested excludes nolle prosequi and probation-revocation matters from the denominator. 7 trial dispositions out of 1,064 contested cases.
Charging method mix
How cases entered the circuit court. Percentages are of total 2025 filings (3,301) and sum to 100%.
Direct indictment skips the district-court preliminary hearing and routes the case directly to grand jury. Reinstatement covers cases revived after a prior dismissal (commonly probation-revocation matters). The Commonwealth's Attorney influences the direct-indictment rate; the appeal-from-district rate reflects defendant choices. Other includes ancillary misdemeanors attached to felony cases, fail-to-appear matters, J&DR appeals, and similar less-common methods.
Disposition breakdown
How 2025 cases ended. Percentages are of resolved cases (2,109) and sum to 100%. Pending or unresolved cases are excluded.
"Probation revoked" = § 19.2-306 revocation matters (prior conviction returning for sentence enforcement). They are not new prosecutions and are excluded from the trial-on-contested calculation. Other includes remanded cases, generic "Resolved" entries, withdrawn appeals, and 9 acquittals (0.4% of resolved cases).
Trial activity
Of the 1,064 contested cases in 2025 (resolved cases excluding nolle and probation revocations), 7 ended at trial — a rate of 0.7%. The statewide median is 9.5%.
Plea outcomes are the inverse of trial outcomes among contested cases. The data shows what happened, not why — plea dynamics depend on evidence, witness availability, prior record, and defense strategy, none of which are visible in court records.
What this data does NOT capture
- Plea-bargain dynamics (which charges were reduced or dropped during negotiation, what was offered)
- Evidence quality, witness availability or cooperation
- Prior record, victim input, or sentencing terms imposed
- Judicial reasoning behind any disposition
- Individual prosecutor performance — these are office-level totals; CIS does not publish prosecutor names by case
- Federal cases (not in CIS)
- Defendant demographics or income
A higher or lower rate compared to the statewide median can reflect prosecutorial policy, local docket composition, charging mix, court resources, or any combination. The data is the starting point of a question, not the answer.
Methodology & sourcing
- Source: Virginia Circuit Court Information System (CIS), 2025 calendar year. Data is keyed by FIPS code; the office is identified at the jurisdiction level.
- Volume band: A (≥1,000 filings). Bands D and E carry wide confidence intervals on any rate.
- Charging-method percentages are of total filings; disposition percentages are of resolved cases; trial-on-contested rate excludes nolle prosequi and § 19.2-306 probation revocations from the denominator.
- The 19th Judicial Circuit (Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Falls Church) Circuit Court is not in CIS and is not included in the 119-office universe.
- Full site methodology · Read the 2025 accountability report · Report a correction