Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdiscoverytrialmotioncriminal proceduregrand jurypiracy

defendantattorneydiscoveryhearingaffidavitmotioncriminal proceduregrand jurypiracy

Related Cases

U.S. v. Guerrerio, 670 F.Supp. 1215

Facts

The defendants, Robert Guerrerio Sr., Rosalie Guerrerio, John Guerrerio, Robert Guerrerio Jr., and Edward Lustig, were indicted on multiple counts related to a conspiracy to defraud the IRS and other federal crimes. The indictment included charges of signing false tax returns, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. The case involved the operations of Rey Caulking Co., Inc., where the defendants allegedly diverted corporate funds and failed to report income, while Robert Sr. received disability payments under false pretenses.

The defendants, Robert Guerrerio Sr., Rosalie Guerrerio, John Guerrerio, Robert Guerrerio Jr., and Edward Lustig, are charged in a fifteen count indictment. Count one charges the five defendants with a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371.

Issue

Whether the government was required to produce state grand jury materials, whether the defendants were entitled to severance, whether a bill of particulars should be ordered, and whether references to bribes and fraud should be stricken from the indictment.

The court must determine whether the government was required to produce state grand jury materials, whether the defendants were entitled to severance, whether a bill of particulars should be ordered, and whether references to bribes and fraud should be stricken from the indictment.

Rule

The court applied the principles of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding discovery, as well as the standards for severance under Rule 14, and the requirements for a bill of particulars.

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the discovery of documents and tangible objects which are 'within the possession, custody or control of the government.'

Analysis

The court determined that the government did not possess the state grand jury materials and thus was not obligated to produce them. The court also found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that a joint trial would deny them a fair trial, as the risks of prejudice were not significant enough to warrant severance. Additionally, the court concluded that the indictment provided sufficient detail and that the references to bribes and fraud were relevant to the charges.

The court finds that in the face of the affidavits submitted by the government, the defendants' claim that the government, through a joint investigation with the Bronx District Attorney, has control of the material sought is insufficient to prompt an evidentiary hearing.

Conclusion

The court denied all motions made by the defendants, concluding that the government had no obligation to produce the requested materials and that the defendants had not shown sufficient grounds for severance or for a bill of particulars.

Motions denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court denied all motions made by the defendants, affirming the validity of the indictment and the prosecution's approach.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Kronberg v. LaRouche, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1443934

People v. Gadson, 19 Cal.App.4th 1700, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 219

Matter of John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 562 N.E.2d 69, 59 USLW 2329

McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9468

Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56