Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 07-101
12-23-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VINCENT THOMAS
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Vincent Thomas's "Motion to Produce Proof of Indictment Returned" (Rec. Doc. 150),
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Defendant asks the Court to direct the Clerk's Office to "provide conclusive proof" that his indictment was "returned in open court" as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(f). He cites Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), for the proposition that indictments must facially confirm that they were returned in open court. (Rec. Doc. 150 at 2).
Assuming that case remains of precedential value, it provides no grounds for the relief Defendant seeks here. The Glasser Court created no formal requirements for indictments, but simply disposed of a criminal defendant's contention that his indictment was not returned in open court by pointing to language on the face of his indictment to refute that contention. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 65-66.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of December, 2013.
___________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE