United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
BRAMLETTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Arthur Wilson
(“Wilson”)'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8),
Motion to Declare the Indictment Defective Due to Duplicity
(Doc. 7), and Motion to Suppress and/or Exclude (Doc. 6).
This Court held a hearing on the aforementioned motions on
October 21, 2019. Having read the Motions, memoranda in
support, applicable statutory and case law, heard the
arguments by the Government and Defendant, and otherwise
being fully informed in the premises finds that the
Defendant's Motions should be DENIED.
August 21, 2018, Defendant Wilson was indicted in criminal
No. 5:18-cr-16-DCB-LRA on one count of conspiring with others
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams
or more of methamphetamine. A warrant was issued for his
arrest, and Defendant Wilson was arrested on September 27,
2018. On March 19, 2019, the Government filed a superseding
indictment in criminal case number
5:18-cr-16-DCB-LRA. On July 24, 2019 -
approximately ten months later - the Government filed a new
indictment against Defendant Wilson in criminal No.
5:19-cr-11-DCB-LRA. That indictment states that Defendant
Wilson, “conspired with others to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and less
than 50 kilograms of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled
substance.” The Defendant argues that these allegations
are “exactly the same, ” that they are based on
the same set of facts and same evidence, and that the only
difference between the two indictments is that the government
has added the charge of conspiring to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute less than 50kg of marijuana. [ECF
No. 8] at p. 2. According to the Defendant, this additional
charge is not based on any new information or new evidence.
Both indictments allege a single count of conspiracy to
violate 21 U.S.C. § 841.
second indictment was filed ten months after Defendant Wilson
was arrested on these charges. The Defendant argues that
dismissal is appropriate because the indictment was not filed
within 30 days from the date on which the Defendant was
arrested… in connection with such charges.
See 18 U.S.C.A. §3161(b).
Government submitted a supplemental response to the oral
argument propounded by the Defendant in relation to the
defense's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8]. See
[ECF No. 15]. In that response, the Government addresses both
the 30-day arrest-to-indictment clock and the 70-day Speedy
Trial clock. The Court finds that the Government's
position is well-taken.
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(b) & (c)(1)
(b) Any information or indictment charging
an individual with the commission of an offense shall be
filed within thirty days from the date on which such
individual was arrested or served with a summons in
connection with such charges. If an individual has been
charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury
has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period
of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an
additional thirty days.”
(c)(1) In any case in which a plea of not
guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an
information or indictment with the commission of an offense
shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and
making public) of the information or indictment, or from the
date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of
the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date
last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried
before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall
commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.
3162(a)(1) sets forth the sanction for noncompliance with
“If, in the case of any individual against whom a
complaint is filed charging such individual with an offense,
no indictment or information is filed within the time limit
required by section 3161(b) as extended by section 3161(h) of
this chapter, such charge against the individual contained in
such complaint shall be dismissed or otherwise
dropped.” The defendant argues that, given his arrest
on the first indictment in Cause No. 5:18-cr-16-DCB-LRA, the
indictment in Cause No. 5:19-cr-11-DCB-FKB must have been
returned within 30-days of the initial indictment.
defendant bases that argument on his assertion that the
allegations in the two cases are “exactly the same,
” and are “based on the same set of facts and
same evidence.” [ECF No. 8] at p. 2. The difference
between the two indictments is that under the newest
indictment, “the Government has added the charge of
conspiring to distribute and possess with an intent to
distribute less than 50 kg of marijuana.” Id.
The defendant argues that, since the two charges are
essentially the same, the second indictment must have been