Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-01688/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-01688-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abraham Barraza-Duarte
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. CR 04-01688-TUC-CKJ [CRP]

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

ABRAHAM BARRAZA-DUARTE, ) 

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment, with prejudice, asserting that because the

Defendant was under continuous surveillance upon and after entry, the indictment does not

correctly allege the offense. The Government opposes the motion, arguing that the

indictment is legally sufficient. This Court agrees that the present indictment in this case,

while potentially at variance with the facts that will be adduced at trial, is legally sufficient.

Therefore, it is recommended that the District Judge, after her independent review, DENY the

motion.

The indictment charges that the Defendant illegally entered and was found in the

United States after having been previously deported. Defendant asserts he was under

continuous surveillance and thus never entered the United States. Defendant asks the Court

to dismiss the indictment because "the Government cannot meet the elements of the offense

charged." Motion, p.6, ll 26-27.

The Government argues that it is improper to dismiss the indictment merely because

the allegations therein may not ultimately be established by the evidence. If the indictment

is legally sufficient, it is not subject to dismissal. United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669

Case 4:04-cr-01688-RCC-CRP Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Since arguing this matter, a second Superceding Indictment has been filed that responds to

Defendant's challenges to this Indictment. The Second Superceding Indictment was not argued or at issue

in this ruling.

- 2 -

(9th Cir.1996).

The Government's position is correct. Defendants ask us to consider facts outside the

four corners of the indictment to justify dismissal. The Court is not to conduct such a

"summary trial." Id. The Motion To Dismiss Indictment should be denied.1

WHEREFORE, IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that the

District Judge, after her independent review, Deny the Motion to Dismiss Indictment [Dkt.

6].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten (10) days from the date of

this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CR 04-

01688-TUC-CKJ.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

CKJ

CRP

Rosemary Marquez, Esq.

Monte C. Clausen, Esq. [AUSA]

PTS

Case 4:04-cr-01688-RCC-CRP Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2