Opinion ID: 550378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Surplusage in the Indictment

Text: 13 Appellant also asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion to strike surplusage from the indictment which appellant alleged was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant sought to delete a clause from the indictment stating that the grand jury was inquiring ... into possible violations of Federal Criminal Law involving money-laundering, drug trafficking and other related offenses.... In United States v. Bullock, 451 F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir.1971) (affirming district court's denial of motion to strike), the court concluded that words will not be stricken from the indictment unless it is clear that the allegations are not relevant to the charge and are inflammatory and prejudicial. The court further noted that this is a most exacting standard. Id. (citing 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 127 at 424-29 (1982)). 14 Appellant argues that the quoted paragraph was prejudicial. He notes that the district court excused two prospective jurors who stated that since this case involved drugs, they did not feel they could be objective. The judge cautioned the remaining jurors that the information was in the indictment solely to inform them the purpose of the grand jury investigation. We are confident the jury could understand the court's instructions and separate background information from the law and the relevant facts.