U.S. v. Crockett

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN J. CROCKETT et al., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Jul 20, 2004

Case No. 2:01CR0038 (D. Utah Jul. 20, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 2:01CR0038.

July 20, 2004

AMENDED ORDER

DEE BENSON, Chief Judge, District

Before the Court is defendant Kevin J. Crockett's Motion to Dismiss Indictments for Violation of Double Jeopardy and a Person's Right to Know What he is Charged With. Defendant is charged with conspiracy in two separate cases before the Court. Defendant filed this same Motion in both cases and the Court previously ruled in case 2:01cr0037, denying defendant's Motion. The Court also ruled on this Motion in case 2:01cr0038, however, the Court recognizes that the ruling was issued prematurely and did not take into consideration defendant's Reply Memorandum. The Court therefore amends its previous Order in case 2:01cr0038 and issues the following Amended Order.

Defendant alleges that the United States violated his Fifth Amendment right under the United States Constitution which states "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend V. Defendant appears to have abandoned this claim based on the language of his reply memorandum.

Defendant continues, however, to challenge the clarity and sufficiency of the indictments alleging his criminal involvement in two separate conspiracies. Defendant claims that both indictments are derived from similar facts, which begs the question why there are two conspiracies alleged, and further claims that both indictments are unclear regarding whether they allege one conspiracy to commit numerous criminal acts or numerous conspiracies to commit numerous criminal acts.

The Court has reviewed the indictments in each respective case and finds that although the allegations are derived from similar facts, the United States has clearly alleged two separate conspiracies which created the necessity for two separate indictments. Defendant has received adequate notice of the charges against him. Reading of the indictments, in the Court's estimation, would clearly give notice to any defendant of the alleged conspiracies being brought against him or her. The Court therefore DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. IT IS SO ORDERED.