Filed: Jun. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge. This case is before the Court for consideration of Motions to Strike Surplusage filed on behalf of Defendants Dias [372], Guervara [360], Bonilla [393], Menjivar [369], Espinoza [363], and Ramirez [375]. The Motions urge the Court to strike paragraphs 1 through 9 from Part I, Count One of the Indictment as surplusage, "mere background," "not relevant," "highly prejudicial," "unnecessary," and "duplicative, inflammatory, and prejudicial." See Id. Rule
Summary: ORDER RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge. This case is before the Court for consideration of Motions to Strike Surplusage filed on behalf of Defendants Dias [372], Guervara [360], Bonilla [393], Menjivar [369], Espinoza [363], and Ramirez [375]. The Motions urge the Court to strike paragraphs 1 through 9 from Part I, Count One of the Indictment as surplusage, "mere background," "not relevant," "highly prejudicial," "unnecessary," and "duplicative, inflammatory, and prejudicial." See Id. Rule 7..
More
ORDER
RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge.
This case is before the Court for consideration of Motions to Strike Surplusage filed on behalf of Defendants Dias [372], Guervara [360], Bonilla [393], Menjivar [369], Espinoza [363], and Ramirez [375]. The Motions urge the Court to strike paragraphs 1 through 9 from Part I, Count One of the Indictment as surplusage, "mere background," "not relevant," "highly prejudicial," "unnecessary," and "duplicative, inflammatory, and prejudicial." See Id. Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the Court to strike surplusage from an indictment or information. However, in U.S. v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415, 1426 (11th Cir. 1992), the Eleventh Circuit advised that:
a motion to strike surplusage from an indictment should not be granted `unless it is clear that the allegations are not relevant to the charge and are inflammatory and prejudicial. . . . [T]his is a most exacting standard.' Therefore, it is proper to reserve ruling on a motion to strike surplusage until the court has heard evidence that will establish the relevance of the allegedly surplus language.
In response to the Motions, the Government submits that the background information challenged is relevant to the existence of the enterprise necessary to be proven under RICO and that the aliases are likewise relevant on the issue of identity. Gov't. Br. [429] at 3-5.
Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that it is not apparent from the face of the Indictment that the allegations sought to be stricken are irrelevant or inflammatory and prejudicial. Therefore, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion until the Court has heard evidence to establish the relevance of the allegedly surplus language.
SO ORDERED.
