U.S.A v. Mccauley, Case No. 07-4009-01-CR-C-NKL
| Decision Date | 11 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07-4009-01-CR-C-NKL |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC SCOTT McCAULEY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
On February 23, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge William A. Knox recommended that the Court enter an Order denying Defendant Eric Scott McCauley's ("McCauley") motions to dismiss various counts due to alleged insufficiencies in the indictment [Docs. # 210, 211, 212, 213]. Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 231].
Having conducted an independent review of the record, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") is correct and should be adopted. The Court notes McCauley's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and clarifies the ruling as follows.
McCauley asserts that the Report failed to address whether the nature of the alleged conspiracies in Counts One and Twenty-Eight required that the crimes be charged with greater specificity. [Doc. # 249, ¶ 10]. The Court finds that the Report clearlyexplained that the indictment meets sufficiency requirements and that "[m]ore may not be expected or required." [Doc. # 231, at 2 (quoting Long v. United States, 296 F.2d 148, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1961))]. Thus, Counts One and Twenty-Eight of the indictment each sufficiently allege a single conspiracy that occurred during a time span, and as noted in the Report, provides sufficient information to enable McCauley to raise the double-jeopardy defense should the need arise. Indeed, McCauley cites to no authority to support his contention that the Government is required to provide in the indictment more precise dates of transactions and identities of participants, or that the Government's failure to do so means that it failed to adequately allege a single conspiracy. McCauley's argument that discrete transactions may have taken place during the alleged duration is a matter to be adduced at trial. Additionally, that the Government intends to introduce similar acts evidence prior to the start of the conspiracy does not bear on the sufficiency of the indictment.
McCauley urges the Court to reconsider Judge Knox's recommendation that the conspiracy charge in Count Twenty-Eight is not duplicitous. The Court does not repeat the sound reasoning of the Report here, but notes that McCauley's arguments primarily concern juror unanimity [Doc. # 249, ¶ 24] which can be addressed in his proposed jury instructions.
Finally, McCauley...
To continue reading
Request your trial