Opinion ID: 202748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relation Back of Superseding Indictments

Text: 97 Appellants next argue that each of the three superseding indictments materially broadened and substantially amended the charges against them and, consequently, do not relate back to the date of the original indictment. As a result, they argue that these indictments are untimely because they allege conduct that concluded more than ten years previously. 98 In United States v. O'Bryant, 998 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir.1993), we held that a superseding indictment which supplants a timely-filed indictment . . . is itself to be regarded as timely . . . so long as it neither materially broadens nor substantially amends the charges against the defendant. Consequently, the superseding indictment relates back to the filing date of the original indictment so long as a strong chain of continuity links the earlier and later charges. Id. at 24. We emphasized that notice-related concerns . . . comprise the touchstone for determining when a superseding indictment materially broadens or substantially amends earlier charges, explaining that a timely indictment serves notice by apprising defendants `that they will be called to account for their activities and should prepare a defense.' Id. (quoting United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598, 601 (2d Cir.1976)). 99 In this case, the original indictment charged the four appellants with bank fraud and conspiracy, alleging fifty-eight overt acts spanning nearly a decade and involving unlawful disbursement of bank funds by Muñoz-Franco and Sánchez-Arán, unlawful receipt of the funds by Gutiérrez, Umpierre-Hernández, and Mirandes, and concealment of these activities from Caguas' Board of directors and regulatory agencies. The First Superseding Indictment, returned on March 5, 1997, added allegations concerning five additional loan projects and forty-four overt acts and added two additional defendants. 27 It also changed the alleged starting date of the conspiracy from December 1981 to June 1980, lengthening the duration of the conspiracy from eight years and five months to nine years and eleven months. The Second Superseding Indictment, returned on May 13, 1997, added allegations about two more loan projects and ten overt acts. Finally, the Third Superseding Indictment, returned on March 6, 1998, separated the allegations relating to the Gutiérrez and Mirandes loans, which the previous indictments had presented as a single unitary conspiracy, into two separate conspiracies set forth in separate counts. 100 We conclude that these revisions do not materially broaden or substantially amend the original indictment. The government is not limited in its proof at trial to those overt acts alleged in the indictment. United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 38 (3d Cir.1976). Therefore, allegations of additional loan projects and overt acts in the superseding indictments do not broaden the original indictment; they simply provide more specific examples to substantiate the original fraud and conspiracy charges. 101 Similarly, the addition of eighteen months to the beginning of a conspiracy spanning nearly a decade does not materially broaden the scope of the indictment. Virtually none of the conduct supporting appellants' convictions occurred between June 1980 and December 1981, and the dates were expanded primarily to allow factual completeness by including the dates of the original loans Caguas extended to various companies. Thus, appellants had adequate notice of the charges against them despite the expanded time frame. 28 102 Finally, we find that the separation of the original unitary bank fraud and conspiracy scheme into two separate schemes, one alleging bank fraud and conspiracy with respect to the Gutiérrez loans and one alleging bank fraud and conspiracy with respect to the Mirandes loans, did not materially broaden or substantially amend the indictment. Muñoz-Franco and Sánchez-Arán still had to explain the same set of actions. With respect to Gutiérrez and Umpierre-Hernández, the division also provided adequate notice. The only difference was that they no longer had to contend with the allegations that related only to the Mirandes loans. Thus, we conclude that the Third Superseding Indictment relates back to November 22, 1995, the date of the original indictment, and find no error in the district court's refusal to dismiss the indictment for untimeliness. 29 103