Opinion
No. 11 CR 920
03-07-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE KASP, Defendant.
11-920.131
ORDER
On January 9, 2013, the defendant, George Kasp, filed a "Motion for Dismissal of Indictment with Prejudice Due to Grand Jury Irregularities." The motion alleges that the indictment should be dismissed because (1) defendant was not present in open court when the indictment was returned; (2) the record does not show that twelve members of the grand jury concurred in the indictment; and (3) the indictment was not signed by the United States Attorney and the Grand Jury Foreperson.
The government filed a Response on January 31, 2013, pointing out (1) that the defendant had no right to be present in open court when the indictment was returned; (2) on January 17, 2012, the indictment was returned in open court before Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow, who entered an order reading: "The Grand Jury for Special February 2011-1,. . . a quorum being present, returns the above entitled document in open Court" (emphasis added); and (3) there is no evidence that the indictment was not signed by the United States Attorney and the Grand Jury Foreperson.
On February 25, 2013, the defendant filed a "Response to Government's Response," which repeats the assertions made in his motion and goes on to include a rambling discussion of matters that are completely irrelevant to the motion.
We have the impression that most of the discussion is cribbed from filings by other defendants in other cases.
The defendant has failed to show any basis for dismissing the indictment. Certainly he has not overcome the presumption of regularity that attends grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Lisinski, 728 F.2d 887, 893-94 (7th Cir. 1984) (a presumption of regularity is accorded to grand jury proceedings, and defendants have a difficult burden to prove any irregularity).
The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment [55] is denied.
ENTER: _________________________
John F. Grady, United States District Judge