From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Agriprocessors, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
Apr 1, 2009
No. 08-CR-1324-LRR (N.D. Iowa Apr. 1, 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-CR-1324-LRR.

April 1, 2009


ORDER


Defendant Sholom Rubashkin's "Motion to Sever Counts 1-11, 12, 13-79, 80-99" ("Motion") (docket no. 213) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO REFILE. After Defendant filed the Motion, the grand jury returned the Fifth Superseding Indictment (docket no. 413). The Fifth Superseding Indictment is arguably substantially different than the Fourth Superseding Indictment (docket no. 177), which Defendant sought to sever.

Any party seeking severance of counts within the Fifth Superseding Indictment must file an appropriate motion on or before April 10, 2009. Resistances are due on or before April 20, 2009. Parties filing motions or resistances are directed to indicate in their briefs the estimated length of trial were the court to hold a single, unified proceeding, as well as the estimated lengths of the proposed trials on the severed counts. See, e.g., United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1151-53 (2d Cir. 1989) (discussing pitfalls of so-called "mega-trials" upon the administration of justice); United States v. Gallo, 668 F. Supp. 736, 754-76 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (similar); Fed.R.Crim.P. 2 ("These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.")

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Agriprocessors, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
Apr 1, 2009
No. 08-CR-1324-LRR (N.D. Iowa Apr. 1, 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. Agriprocessors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AGRIPROCESSORS, INC., SHOLOM…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 1, 2009

Citations

No. 08-CR-1324-LRR (N.D. Iowa Apr. 1, 2009)