From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Verduzco

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Mar 31, 2006
Nos. CR-05-2087-3-LRS, CR-05-2087-5-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Nos. CR-05-2087-3-LRS, CR-05-2087-5-LRS.

March 31, 2006


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION


BEFORE THE COURT is the Defendant Verduzco's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 339, filed on March 26, 2006 in No. CR-05-2087-LRS-3; and Defendant Padilla's Motion to Join in Motion to Reconsider Dismissal Without Prejudice, Ct. Rec. 346, filed on March 28, 2006 in No. CR-05-2087-LRS-5. The government has not responded.

Defendant Verduzco argues that the failure to dismiss with prejudice would adversely impact the Speedy Trial Act and the administration of justice in this case. Defendant Verduzco argues a dismissal without prejudice is the functional equivalent of granting the Government's motion for a continuance, filed and denied prior to trial.

Defendant Padilla argues that the government never had a case against him and that his life has changed dramatically due to the charges. With the current status of the case, Defendant Padilla argues that he will not be free to return to California.

The Court does not find any actual prejudice to Defendants. To dismiss with prejudice would be inappropriate under the facts of this case. The Court stands by its earlier ruling.

Federal courts draw their power to dismiss indictments from two sources. First, a court may dismiss an indictment if it perceives constitutional error that interferes with the grand jury's independence and the integrity of the grand jury proceeding. "Constitutional error is found where the `structural protections of the grand jury have been so compromised as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, allowing the presumption of prejudice' to the defendant." United States v. Larrazolo, 869 F.2d 1354, 1357-58 (9th Cir. 1989). Constitutional error may also be found "if [the] defendant can show a history of prosecutorial misconduct that is so systematic and pervasive that it affects the fundamental fairness of the proceeding or if the independence of the grand jury is substantially infringed." Id. at 1358.

Second, a district court may draw on its supervisory powers to dismiss an indictment. The supervisory powers doctrine "is premised on the inherent ability of the federal courts to formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or Congress to supervise the administration of justice." Id. at 1358. Before it may invoke this power, a court must first find that the defendant is actually prejudiced by the misconduct. Absent such prejudice-that is, absent "`grave' doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of [the misconduct]"-a dismissal is not warranted. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988).

Dismissal of an indictment with prejudice is the most severe sanction possible. Such dismissal exercised under the guise of "supervisory power" is impermissible absent "a clear basis in fact and law for doing so." United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977).

The Court has considered the written materials of counsel and cannot find any prosecutorial misconduct or that Defendants have suffered any actual prejudice. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant Verduzco's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 339, filed on March 26, 2006 in No. CR-05-2087-LRS-3, is DENIED.

2. Defendant Padilla's Motion to Join in Motion to Reconsider Dismissal Without Prejudice, Ct. Rec. 346, filed on March 28, 2006 in No. CR-05-2087-LRS-5 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The request for joinder is granted but the motion to reconsider dismissal without prejudice is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this order and to provide copies to all counsel.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Verduzco

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Mar 31, 2006
Nos. CR-05-2087-3-LRS, CR-05-2087-5-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2006)
Case details for

U.S. v. Verduzco

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTONIO AVILA VERDUZCO, and…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Washington

Date published: Mar 31, 2006

Citations

Nos. CR-05-2087-3-LRS, CR-05-2087-5-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2006)