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 are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. 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
(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact