New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More

Indictments: Table of Contents

See Full Document

Part III: Indictments

  • JOINDER/SEVERANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
    • DISTINCTION BETWEEN “MISJOINDER” UNDER RULE 8 AND “PREJUDICIAL” JOINDER UNDER RULE 14:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
  • JOINDER OF OFFENSE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • SIMILAR OFFENSE (WITHIN SHORT PERIOD OF TIME)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • MISJOINDER……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
  • IMPROPERLY CHARGED OFFENSES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
    • “MULTIPLICITOUS” INDICTMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
    • “DUPLICITOUS” INDICTMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
    • REMEDY FOR “MULTIPLICITOUS” OR “DUPLICITOUS” PLEADING [ELECTION OF “OFFENSES” OR “COUNTS”]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
    • REMEDY FOR “MISJOINDER” OF OFFENSES [Rule 8a] [SEVERANCE FOR SEPARATE TRIAL]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
    • REMEDY FROM “PREJUDICIAL” JOINDER [Rule 14] [SEVERANCE FOR SEPARATE TRIAL]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
  • JOINING UNRELATED CRIMES “OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER” CREATES DANGER OF PREJUDICE”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
  • MISJOINDER UNDER RULE 8(a) IS INHERENTLY PREJUDICIAL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
  • SUCH JOINDER IS NEITHER EFFICIENT NOR ECONOMICAL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
  • STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 8(a)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
  • JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS [Rule 8b]……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
  • DISTINCTION BETWEEN RULES 8(a) AND 8(b)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
    • OFFENSES OF “SAME OF SIMILAR CHARACTER”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
    • PROPRIETY OF JOINDER VIEWED FROM FACE OF INDICTMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
    • RULE 8(b) GOVERNS SEVERANCE OF DEFENDANTS OR OFFENSES IN MULTIPLE DEFENDANT CASES………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
  • CONSPIRACY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
  • DOUBLE JEOPARDY BARS MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS FOR THE SAME OFFENSE:. 11
  • TEST AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES “SAME SERIES OF ACTS OR TRANSACTIONS”: . 12
    • COMMON DEFENDANTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
    • SAME TIME PERIOD OR STATUTORY VIOLATION ALONE INSUFFICIENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
    • OVERALL SCHEME INVOLVING ALL DEFENDANTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
    • MISJOINDER WHERE DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT THE DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
  • “WHEELS” AND “CHAINS”:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
  • RULE 14: RELIEF FROM PREJUDICIAL JOINDER………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
    • “PREJUDICE” FOUND:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
    • MULTI-COUNT INDICTMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT IS ONLY MINIMALLY CHARGED………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
    • ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
    • TEST:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
    • PURPOSE OF RULE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
    • PREJUDICE THAT WARRANTS SEVERANCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • CO-DEFENDANT’S DEFENSE PREJUDICIAL TO DEFENDANT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • CO-DEFENDANT HAS PLEAD GUILTY TO SIMILAR OFFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • JOINT TRIAL WOULD BE SUBVERT PRIVILEGE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • SPILL-OVER EFFECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
      • TEST:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
      • QUALITATIVE DISPARITY MUST BE SHOWN:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
      • REPUTATION AND PAST CRIME ALONE ARE INSUFFICIENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
      • CO-DEFENDANT IS AN ASSHOLE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
      • CO-DEFENDANT IS BULL-SHIT DEFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
      • DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF PROLONGED COMPLEX CASES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
      • THE “65 DAY RULE” IN MEGA-TRIALS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
      • “BRUTON” SEVERANCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
      • BRUTON DISCOVERY RIGHT UNDER RULE 14:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
      • CONTEXTUAL INCULPATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
      • FILLING IN THE BLANKS:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
      • “DELUNA” SEVERANCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
      • NEED TO CALL A JOINED CO-DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
      • TEST:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
  • IMMUNITY FOR DEFENSE WITNESSES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
  • SEVERANCE OF OFFENSES:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
    • FIFTH AMENDMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
    • EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE ONLY AS TO ONE COUNT:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
    • EMPANELING TWO JURIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
    • FAILURE TO RENEW MOTION AT CLOSE OF EVIDENCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
  • MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
    • LIMITATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
    • PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
    • PREJUDICE OF GRAND JURY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
    • FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
    • VAGUENESS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
    • OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
    • INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO COUNSEL………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
    • ETHICAL STANDARDS INCORPORATED INTO LOCAL FEDERAL COURT 37 DISMISSAL IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY WHERE PROSECUTOR’S INTERFERENCE WITH CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION CAUSES THE ACCUSED TO LOSE HIS LAWYER………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
    • PRE-INDICTMENT AS WELL AS POST-INDICTMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
  • CHANGE OF VENUE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
    • CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
    • PLACE OF TRIAL WITHIN DISTRICT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
    • COURT MUST GIVE DUE REGARD TO THE CONVENIENCE OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
    • VENUE WHERE OFFENSES CHARGED WERE COMMITTED IN MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
    • VENUE WHERE OFFENSE CHARGED IS ONE OF OMISSION:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
    • VENUE IN CONSPIRACY CASES……………………………………………………… 49
    • VENUE WHERE OFFENSE CHARGED IS AIDING AND ABETTING:… 49
    • TWO DEFENDANTS, TWO JURIES…………………………………………………… 49
    • TRANSFER FROM DISTRICT FOR TRIAL…………………………………………. 50
    • RULE 21, R.CR.P…………………………………………………………………………….. 50
    • RULE 21(a), TRANSFER DUE TO PREJUDICE…………………………………… 50
    • RULE 21(b), TRANSFER ON THE GROUNDS OF “CONVENIENCE”….. 51
    • TRANSFER WITHIN A DISTRICT……………………………………………………… 52
    • RULE 18, R.CR.P…………………………………………………………………………….. 52
    • TRANSFER FROM DISTRICT FOR PLEA AND SENTENCE:……………… 53
    • TRANSFER FOR PLEA………………………………………………………………………. 53
READ MORE STORIES
(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  3. Results
  4. Contact