Free Order on Motion to Dismiss Counts - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB

Document 647

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Criminal Case No. 04-cr-00103-REB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NORMAN SCHMIDT GEORGE ALAN WEED, PETER A.W. MOSS, CHARLES LEWIS, JANNICE McLAIN SCHMIDT, MICHAEL SMITH, and GEORGE BEROS,

Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING NORMAN SCHMIDT' MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND S SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ Blackburn, J. The matters before me are 1) the Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment [#573] filed October 24, 2005; 2) the Supplement to Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment [#610] filed December 30, 2005; and 3) the Amended Supplement to Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment [#615] filed January 4, 2006,1 by defendant, Norman Schmidt.2 Defendant uses these

Although filed out of time, i.e., after the December 30, 2005, deadline for filing motions that impugn the Second Superseding Indictment, see Supplemental Scheduling Order at 2, ¶ 3 [#584] entered November 4, 2005, I will consider the amended supplement because defendant establishes good cause for its belated filing. The motion is joined by defendants, Charles Lewis, Jannice McClain Schmidt, and George Beros. See Minute Order [#640] entered January 30, 2006.
2

1

Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB

Document 647

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 2 of 3

three papers in an effort to present, develop, and circumstantiate his principle contention that he was denied his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to an impartial grand jury because of the procedure used in indicting him. I deny the motions.3 Defendant' attack on the indictment is long on assumption and short on s authority. In a detailed, circumstantiated, and well-reasoned response,4 the government addresses and refutes defendant' contentions point by point. Therefore, I approve, s adopt, and incorporate the reasons stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited by the government in its thoughtful and comprehensive response, which adequately expatiates my ratiocination and obviates the need for further festooned reiteration. Conspicuously absent from defendant' contentions is any express claim that the s indictment is not supported by evidence sufficient to establish probable cause. Defendant' motions in their various iterations should be denied without evidentiary s hearing. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment [#573] filed October 24, 2005, IS DENIED; 2 That the Supplement to Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding

The issues raised by and inherent to the motion are briefed adequately; thereby, obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Defendant has had more than enough time to present all that he deemed necessary to support his extraordinary request. See Government' Objection and Response To Defendant Norman Schmidt' Motions s s To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment (joined by Defendants Jannice McClain Schmidt, Charles Lewis, & George Beros) [#625] filed January 18, 2006.
4

3

2

Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB

Document 647

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 3 of 3

Indictment [#610] filed December 30, 2005, IS DENIED; 3. That Amended Supplement to Motion To Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment [#615] filed January 4, 2006, IS DENIED; and 4. That defendant' request for an evidentiary hearing IS DENIED. s Dated February 2, 2006, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: s/ Robert E. Blackburn Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge

3