Opinion ID: 569192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Miscitation in Indictment

Text: 12 The district court allowed the government to amend the statutory citation in count I, p 4, to refer to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B) instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A), and determined that the miscitation in the original indictment was nonprejudicial. 6 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) provides in relevant part that: 13 (1) The indictment or information shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged therein to have violated 14 .... 15 (3) Harmless Error. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the indictment or information or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice. 16 Appellants argue that the miscitation in the original indictment, and its belated amendment immediately before trial, prejudiced their defense. According to appellants, until the time the amendment was allowed they had proceeded on the understanding that the government was attempting, mistakenly, to charge them under section 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii), which was not in effect when their payroll check transactions were conducted. 7 Their theory is not borne out by the record. 17 First, count I, paragraph 4, plainly alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) by charging a conspiracy to launder drug trafficking and gambling proceeds in order to conceal and disguise the true nature, location, and source of the drug trafficking and gambling proceeds. The language of the indictment closely tracks section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), which criminalizes the knowing conduct of a financial transaction designed to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii), on the other hand, criminalizes financial transactions undertaken with intent to engage in conduct violative of I.R.C. §§ 7201 and 7206, which in turn criminalize attempted tax evasion and the filing of false tax documents. As the original indictment was drafted in the operative language of section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), which bears little resemblance to section 1956(a)(1)(A), we find that the citation to section 1956(a)(1)(A) was a patent mistake and that the original indictment placed appellants on reasonable notice that they were being charged with the money laundering conspiracy expressly alleged in the text of the indictment. See United States v. Morrison, 531 F.2d 1089, 1094 (1st Cir.) (defendant not prejudiced by government's failure to cite to correct statute where text of indictment provided adequate notice of charge), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837, 97 S.Ct. 104, 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); United States v. Kennington, 650 F.2d 544, 546 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Stinson, 594 F.2d 982, 984-85 (4th Cir.1979) (no prejudice where indictment cited 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e) but used precise language of § 5861(d)); see also United States v. Mena, 933 F.2d 19, 22 n. 2 (1st Cir.1991). 18 Furthermore, whatever initial confusion might have been created by the obvious inconsistency between the text of the indictment and the miscitation to section 1956(a)(1)(A) 8 would have been dissipated entirely and immediately upon presentation of the government's opening statement, if not sooner: 19 This trial involves drug dealers, gamblers and money launderers. We're not talking about an attempt by Mr. Isabel and Mr. Descoteaux to cheat on their taxes. Okay. The United States Attorney prosecutes those cases as well. But this is not a tax evasion case. These people, ladies and gentlemen, are charged with conspiring together and with other drug dealers and gamblers to launder money and to make it look like that money was legitimate income, legal income. The way they did it was the drug dealers ... would give their money to Mr. Isabel. Mr. Descoteaux was one of the drug dealers. Mr. Descoteaux gave his money, as the other drug dealers did, to Mr. Isabel, who had a little business that he owned.... The drug dealers and the gambler would give their cash, their dirty money, to Mr. Isabel.... In return for the money, which could have been anywhere from 500 to 700, sometimes $1,000 in cash on a fairly regular basis, in return for that money, that money bought the drug dealers and the gambler a paycheck, a paycheck drawn on M.G. Masonry and signed by Mr. Isabel. So, Mr. Isabel made it look like the drug dealers and the gambler worked for him. 20 (Emphasis added). 21 Similarly, appellants have identified no prejudice attributable to the miscitation. Nowhere in their briefs, nor even at oral argument, have appellants suggested that there were defense stratagems which would or would not have been employed but for the miscitation. 9 Cf. United States v. Van West, 455 F.2d 958, 959 (1st Cir.1972) (per curiam) (no prejudice where [n]ot only was it apparent on the face of the indictment that citation was erroneous, but cross-examination of government's witnesses revealed defendant's awareness of correct charge). We are unpersuaded that appellants were occasioned significant prejudice either by the original miscitation or by the timing of the amendment.