Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. BROTHERS

February 25, 1993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RUSSELL WHITE BROTHERS, JR., G. THOMAS NEBEL, and THOMAS WHITE BROTHERS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: THOMAS A. HIGGINS

 The Court has before it the defendant Thomas Brothers' motion *fn1" (filed February 12, 1993; Docket Entry No. 245) to strike Overt Acts nine through fourteen of the Second Superseding Indictment; and the government's response (filed February 23, 1993; Docket Entry No. 265) to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.

 I. BACKGROUND

 Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment (filed January 29, 1993; Docket Entry No. 233) charges all three defendants with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, 1956, and 1957, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. *fn2" The defendant, Thomas Brothers, has moved to strike Overt Acts nine through fourteen of Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, specifically alleging that "those 'Overt Acts' could not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged, and were thus surplusage." Motion to strike at 1. *fn3"

 The government, relying on its prior response, argues that: (1) the indictment alleges overt acts which occurred both before and after the effective date of the charging statutes; and (2) "none of the overt acts should be stricken as surplusage" since "each overt act is relevant to proving the on-going conspiracy." Government's response (filed October 26, 1992; Docket Entry No. 128) at 4-5.

 II. DISCUSSION

 Mr. Brothers contends that certain of the alleged Overt Acts (Overt Acts nine through fourteen) occurred before the statutory offenses to which they are directed became law. He argues that, since "an overt act in a conspiracy case 'must be done in furtherance of the object of the agreement,' . . . . it would have been impossible for these acts predating the statutes to have been performed in furtherance of an agreement to violate [ 28 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957]." Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss at 13 (quoting Sandroff v. United States, 174 F.2d 1014, 1018 (6th Cir. 1949) (jury charge), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 947, 70 S. Ct. 485, 94 L. Ed. 584 (1950)).

 Sections 1956 and 1957 came into effect on October 27, 1986. See Pub. L. No. 99-570, § 1352 (a), 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-18 through -21 (1986). Each of the contested acts took place before that date. See Second Superseding Indictment at 6-7. Other overt acts alleged in Count One to have been in furtherance of the conspiracy, however, took place after October 27, 1986. "It is the continuing nature of such crimes as conspiracy . . . which saves an indictment even though it alleges a scheme which was originated before, but was executed at least in part after, the effective criminalization of the activity involved in executing the scheme." United States v. Whitty, 688 F. Supp. 48, 53 (D. Me. 1988); see United States v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., 587 F.2d 782, 782-83 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Robichaux, 698 F. Supp. 107, 110-11 (E.D. La. 1988). Therefore, the Court declines to strike the contested Overt Acts because they occurred before the enactment of the statutes.

 III. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny the defendants' motions to strike.

 An appropriate order shall be entered.

 Thomas A. Higgins

 United States District ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.