Free Order on Motion to Quash - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 10.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 326 Words, 2,225 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/23819/650.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Quash - District Court of Colorado ( 10.1 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Quash - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB-MEH

Document 650

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 1 of 2

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 MOTION TO QUASH SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TO DEFENDANT (6) MICHAEL D. SMITH _____________________________________________________________________ Blackburn, J. The matter before me is the Motion To Quash Second Superseding Indictment As To Defendant (6) Michael D. Smith [#609] filed December 30, 2005. I deny the motion.1 I hold 1) that the affirmative defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; 2) that the existence and purview of culpability and accountability inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; 3) that the issues raised by and inherent to a putative
The issues raised by and inherent to the motion are briefed adequately; thereby, obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument.
1

Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB-MEH

Document 650

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 2 of 2

defense that defendant complied with all relevant and required duties, standards, and laws inherently implicates issues of fact to be determined at trial by the jury; and 4) that the Second Superseding Indictment is sufficient as a matter of law vis-à-vis defendant. In further support of my holding, I approve, adopt, and incorporate the reasons stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited by the government in its response [#626] filed January 18, 2006, which adequately expatiates my ratiocination without further festooned reiteration. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion To Quash Second Superseding Indictment As To Defendant (6) Michael D. Smith [#609] filed December 30, 2005, IS DENIED. Dated February 2, 2006, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: s/ Robert E. Blackburn Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge

2