Opinion ID: 1433971
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Errors in the indictment and grand jury testimony

Text: On March 16, 2007, after the trial had commenced, Whitfield filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Prosecutorial Misconduct and Presentation of False Testimony before the Grand Jury. The district court denied the motion, and Whitfield now claims error. Whitfield contends that his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when the Government presented a factually incorrect indictment and elicited false testimony before the grand jury. As the Government freely admits, the indictment in this case contained a factual error concerning the effect of the fiat signed by Whitfield on February 10, 1999. The indictment charged that the fiat authoriz[ed] the immediate payment of money for medical expenses to Minor's client, Archie Marks. In actuality, the fiat merely granted an expedited hearing in Whitfield's court to set a trial date. Although no transcript of the grand jury proceedings appears in the trial record, Whitfield asserts, and the Government does not deny, that Special Agent Steve Callender of the FBI testified that the fiat was presented to Judge Whitfield in order to get payment for medical expenses. [24] FED.R.CRIM.P. 12(b)(3)(B) provides that a motion alleging a defect in the indictment must be made before trial. Failure to comply with this rule generally constitutes waiver. United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268, 271 n. 1 (5th Cir.1979). However, a court may excuse a defendant's failure to timely file a motion for good cause. Id. ; FED.R.CRIM.P. 12(e). In this case, Whitfield was furnished with a copy of the indictment and a transcript of the grand jury proceedings well before trial, therefore he has no excuse for failing to move for dismissal prior to trial. See Cathey, 591 F.2d at 271 n. 1 (finding good cause for untimely motion where defendant did not receive transcript of grand jury testimony until after trial had begun). As such, we find no error in the district court's refusal to grant Whitfield's untimely motion. Further, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such error prejudiced the defendant[ ]. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 2373, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988). Whether or not prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant depends on whether it affected the grand jury's decision to indict. Id. at 2378. In this case, the grand jury was presented with substantial evidence in support of the Government's allegations against Whitfield. The minor factual error concerning the effect of the fiat was inconsequential. Under the Government's theory of the case, the true significance of the fiat was not that it (eventually) allowed Marks to collect money for medical expenses. Rather, by filing the motion before Whitfield specifically, Minor signified that the time had come for Whitfield to fulfill his part of the bargain. And by issuing the fiat and setting a hearing in his own court, Whitfield understood that he was bypassing court procedure and effectively assigning the case to himself. Thus, we believe that the error in the indictment and Callender's testimony were not so significant as to substantially influence the grand jury's decision to indict Whitfield and thereby cause him prejudice. [25] See id. As Whitfield's motion to dismiss was untimely and, in any event, he was not prejudiced by the error in the indictment or grand jury testimony in question, we find no reversible error. [26]