Opinion ID: 2976069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to dismiss count four of the indictment

Text: This Court reviews a district court’s determination regarding the dismissal of a count in an indictment based on prosecutorial vindictiveness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Suarez, 263 F.3d 468, 476 (6th Cir. 2001).
Defendant claims that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the superceding indictment based on prosecutorial vindictiveness. Defendant maintains that the government had impermissible motives in seeking a second superseding indictment with an additional charge of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We disagree. It is well established that due process protects against prosecutorial retaliation for a defendant’s exercise of a statutory or constitutional right. United States v. Poole, 407 F.3d 767, 774 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982)). Indeed, “[t]o punish a person because he has done something the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation No. 06-5581 United States v. Moon Page 5 of the most basic sort.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 372 (internal citations omitted). However, “the Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment . . . , [] only by those that pose a ‘realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.’” United States v. Roach, 502 F.3d 425, 443 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27 (1974)). This Court considered the issue of prosecutorial vindictiveness in the pre-trial context in United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc). We held that to prove a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness, a defendant must demonstrate that “the prosecutor has some ‘stake’ in deterring the petitioner's exercise of his rights, and that the prosecutor's conduct was somehow unreasonable.” United States v. Anderson, 923 F.2d 450, 453-54 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Andrews, 633 F.2d at 453-455); United States v. Dupree, 323 F.3d 480, 489 (6th Cir. 2003). Applying this standard, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss the second superseding indictment inasmuch as Defendant failed to demonstrate a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. As a threshold matter, Defendant must prove that the allegedly vindictive government action occurred following the exercise of a protected right. Defendant argues that she was punished for exercising her right to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment against her through a motion to dismiss. Certainly, raising such a challenge to an indictment is a protected right. The government concedes this point on appeal. Defendant, however, must also demonstrate that the government had a “stake” in deterring the exercise of her protected right. Anderson, 923 F.2d at 453-54. In the instant case, Defendant’s argument rests on the prosecutor’s stake in deterring the exercise of the procedural right to put forth a motion to dismiss inasmuch as the prosecutor had to return to the grand jury on two occasions. However, the fact that the government had to return for a superseding indictment does not constitute a sufficient stake in deterring Defendant’s exercise of a protected right. In United States v. Ewing, 1994 WL 577055, at  (6th Cir. 1994), this Court faced a similar factual scenario. In Ewing, a defendant successfully moved to dismiss his indictment on one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base as a result of a violation of the Speedy Trials Act. Following the dismissal, the defendant was reindicted with the original charge as well as an additional charge for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Id. The defendant alleged that the additional charge resulted from prosecutorial vindictiveness. Id. On review, this Court held that “some repetition of prosecutorial efforts,” in the form of a reindictment, did not constitute a sufficient “burden” to trigger a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” in the pretrial context. Id. In the instant case, as in Ewing, there was also a “repetition of prosecutorial efforts” inasmuch as the government had to refile the indictment against the Defendant to allege that the health care fraud affected interstate commerce. While the government had a greater burden than in Ewing, as it had to refile two times, it does not change the fact that this repetition of efforts is not a sufficient “stake” in the outcome such that the prosecutor would seek to deter the exercise of the procedural right involved here. See Durham v. United States, 1986 WL 16833, at  (6th Cir. 1986) (unpublished) (finding no stake in deterring exercise of procedural right to sever trial despite repetition of prosecutorial efforts in relitigation of common issues). Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, motions to dismiss indictments are common as “[a] defendant before trial is expected to invoke procedural rights that inevitably impose some ‘burden’ on the prosecutor . . . ” including motions “to challenge the sufficiency and form of the indictment.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 381. Pressing her claim, Defendant cites United States v. Eddy, 737 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1984), for the proposition that “where the facts indicate that an Indictment with new or additional charges would not have been brought had there been no acquittal of the defendant or dismissal of the charges, a presumption of vindictiveness is raised.” (Def. Br. at 16) This Court’s decision in Eddy, No. 06-5581 United States v. Moon Page 6 however, is inapposite. In Eddy this Court found a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” where the defendant was charged with perjury, post-trial, following an acquittal, not dismissal, on the initial criminal charge. Id. at 572. Here, unlike the post–trial setting, “no party is asked to ‘do over what it thought it had already done correctly.’” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 383. Consequently, there is less of a “burden” on the government at the pre-trial stage in seeking a new indictment, and thus, the government had less of a “stake” in deterring Defendant’s exercise of a procedural right. Moreover, to raise a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,” Defendant must prove that the government’s conduct was unreasonable. Here, the government asserts that it did not bring the false statement charge in prior indictments because it did not want to delay the trial start date. However, upon dismissal of the superseding indictment, this was no longer an issue. Therefore, the government contends, the additional charge was put forward. The district court credited this explanation and found the government’s conduct to be reasonable. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion given that at the pretrial stage, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the proper extent of prosecution may not have crystallized.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 381. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied.