Opinion
Criminal Case No. 04-cr-00103-REB.
February 2, 2006
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TO DEFENDANT (6) MICHAEL D. SMITH
The matter before me is the Motion To Quash Second Superseding Indictment As To Defendant (6) Michael D. Smith [#609] filed December 30, 2005. I deny the motion.
The issues raised by and inherent to the motion are briefed adequately; thereby, obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument.
I hold 1) that the affirmative defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; 2) that the existence and purview of culpability and accountability inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; 3) that the issues raised by and inherent to a putative defense that defendant complied with all relevant and required duties, standards, and laws inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; and 4) that the Second Superseding Indictment is sufficient as a matter of law vis-à-vis defendant. In further support of my holding, I approve, adopt, and incorporate the reasons stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited by the government in its response [#626] filed January 18, 2006, which adequately expatiates my ratiocination without further festooned reiteration.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion To Quash Second Superseding Indictment As To Defendant (6) Michael D. Smith [#609] filed December 30, 2005, IS DENIED.