Indictments - Dismissal Based on Undisputed Facts

United States v. Stock, 728 F.3d 287 (3rd Cir. 2013)

The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §875. The Third Circuit held that “the word ‘threat’ in § 875(c) encompasses only communications expressing an intent to inflict injury in the present or future.” Thus, a general threat that a person deserves to be killed is not sufficient to prove a threat under §875. In this case, the defendant wrote a post on Craigslist stating that he had been searching for some particular police officer so that he could beat him up, but couldn’t find him. He did not say that the search would continue, or that he had any intent to harm him in the future. However, he did state that he wished that the officer would die. The Third Circuit held that this “wish” was sufficient to satisfy the “future intent” element of the offense. The Third Circuit held that the district court had the authority to determine whether the indictment was sufficient to allege an offense, because the precise “threat” made by the defendant was set forth in the indictment.

United States v. Ali, 557 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2009)

The defendant was charged with making a false statement on a naturalization document. Specifically, he stated that he had never been married to two different people at the same time. The government alleged that while he was still married to a Canadian woman, he married a woman in Georgia. He claimed, in a motion to dismiss, that under Georgia law, he could not marry the second woman, because of the pre-existing marriage. The government claimed that this defense had to be raised at trial. The Sixth Circuit disagreed and held that a motion that can be decided as a matter of law without any contested facts can be raised pretrial pursuant to Rule 12. On the merits, the court held that the indictment should not be dismissed.