UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
October 5, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOSE ALFARO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Manuel Real United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT (Doc. 617) AND FINDINGS THERETO
Having heard from plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, and defendant JOSE ALFARO, by and through the authorized representative of his counsel of record, James Cooper, at a hearing held before this Court on September 16, 2010, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS FOLLOWS
1. The Court read and considered Jose Alfaro's Motion To Dismiss For Insufficiency in the Indictment (Doc. No. 617) and the government's opposition thereto.
2. The Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, declarations and documents filed by the parties, as well as the argument presented at the hearing, orally denied the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. This Order will supplement the Court's oral ruling denying the motion. In connection with this Order, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. On September 16, 2010, this Court held a hearing on the motion. Defendant appeared in person with his counsel of record. After affording the parties opportunity for argument, the Court denied defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
4. The Court finds that Federal Rule of Criminal procedure 7(c)(1) requires indictments to be plain, concise, and definite written statements of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.
5. The Court considers United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) and finds that an indictment setting forth the elements of the offense is generally sufficient.
6. The Court finds that the indictment before the Court details the time, place, activities, and participants of the conspiracies alleged in counts 1 and 16. The Court further finds that paragraph 79 of count 16 specifically alleges that Defendant Alfaro and his co-defendants agreed to commit the offenses alleged.
7. The Court therefore finds that the indictment is sufficient.
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Jose Alfaro's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment due to Insufficiency is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.