Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Zuschlag

United States District Court, D. Maine

July 26, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
KRISTEN ZUSCHLAG and ROBERT ZUSCHLAG, Defendants

          ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

          D. Brock Hornby United States District Judge

         Robert Zuschlag's Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Misjoinder (ECF No. 60)

         The defendant Robert Zuschlag's motion for relief from prejudicial misjoinder (ECF No. 60) is Granted. United States v. Jordan, 112 F.3d 14, 16- 18 (1st Cir. 1997), a case with which I am very familiar having been the trial judge, is directly on point. Its Fifth Amendment concerns when a defendant wishes to raise a Cheek[1] defense to tax charges apply here. Later cases that the government cites in support of its position did not involve Cheek defenses. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 515 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2008).

         The defendant Kristen Zuschlag moved to join Robert Zuschlag's motions (ECF No. 67), and the government did not oppose her motion to join as it pertains to this motion (ECF No. 81). Different counts pertain to Kristen Zuschlag, however, and Robert Zuschlag's motion does not make the prejudice showing for her that I have found persuasive for him. Nevertheless, I suspect that the government will want the same treatment for both Zuschlags. Counsel shall notify the court by August 9, 2017, whether they agree on what counts should be severed for the two trials, failing which the defendant Kristen Zuschlag shall file her own motion for relief from prejudicial joinder by August 18, 2017.

         Robert Zuschlag's Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 61)

         The defendant Robert Zuschlag's motion for bill of particulars, joined in by the defendant Kristen Zuschlag (ECF No. 67) with the government's consent (ECF No. 81), is Denied. As the First Circuit stated in United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1192-93 (1st Cir. 1993):

Motions for bills of particulars are seldom employed in modern federal practice. When pursued, they need be granted only if the accused, in the absence of a more detailed specification, will be disabled from preparing a defense, caught by unfair surprise at trial, or hampered in seeking the shelter of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

         None of those factors applies here. The Second Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 37) is very detailed, and the government has provided all the documents in its possession except for Jencks Act materials concerning witnesses and its own work product. Govt.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. 2 (ECF No. 76). The defendant “is not entitled by way of a bill of particulars to obtain details revealing the precise manner in which the government alleges that he committed the crimes charged or the manner in which it will attempt to prove the charges.” United States v. Faucette, No. 2:13-cr-79-DBH, 2013 WL 3458182, at *1 (D. Me. July 9, 2013).[2]Given the detailed indictment and the open file discovery, there is no basis for concern about Double Jeopardy, unfair surprise at trial, or being unable to prepare a defense.

         Kristen Zuschlag's Motion for Discovery [Brady and Giglio Materials] (ECF No. 62)

         As in United States v. Barnard, No. 1:14-cr-88-JAW, 2016 WL 1298100, at *2-3 (D. Me. Apr. 1, 2016), given the government's recognition of its Brady[3]and Giglio[4] obligations, “The Court DISMISSES without prejudice [the defendant's] Motion for Discovery [Brady and Giglio Materials].”

         Kristen Zuschlag's Motion for Order [to Preserve and Produce Rough Notes] (ECF No. 63)

         As in United States v. Barnard, No. 1:14-cr-88-JAW, 2016 WL 1357749, at *2 (D. Me. Apr. 5, 2016), “The Court GRANTS the motion insofar as it requests that the Government preserve any rough notes and similar documents in the possession of the Government or its agents; the Court DISMISSES the motion insofar as it requests that the Government produce any such notes or similar documents.”

         Kristen Zuschlag's Motion in Limine (for Pretrial Evidentiary Rulings (ECF No. 64)

         The defendant Kristen Zuschlag's motion in in limine (for pretrial evidentiary rulings) is Denied without prejudice. It is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.