From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Anderson

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Dec 5, 2011
CASE NO. 4:11CR00145 BSM (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:11CR00145 BSM

December 05, 2011.


ORDER


Joseph Lee Anderson's motion for a bill of particulars [Doc. No. 11] is denied as moot and Anderson's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is denied without prejudice.

The government's response [Doc. No. 15] to Anderson's motion for a bill of particulars provides sufficient information for Anderson to prepare for trial and avoid prejudicial surprise. See United States v. Wessels, 12 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir. 1993) (discussing the purpose of a bill of particulars). Therefore, his motion for a bill of particulars [Doc. No. 11] is denied as moot.

"Venue is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury[.]" United States v. Jaber, 509 F. 3d 463 (8th Cir. 2007). Anderson's motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue [Doc. No. 12] is premature because there has been no proof as to this issue. A proper allegation of venue, as the government has provided in the indictment [Doc. No. 1] and in its response [Doc. No. 14] to Anderson's motion to dismiss, is sufficient to justify a trial in this district. If, however, the government has failed to meet its burden of establishing venue at trial, Anderson may move for acquittal at the conclusion of the government's case. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). Anderson's motion to dismiss [Doc No. 12] is therefore denied without prejudice.

For all of these reasons, Anderson's motion for bill of particulars [Doc. No. 11] and motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 12] are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED


Summaries of

U.S. v. Anderson

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Dec 5, 2011
CASE NO. 4:11CR00145 BSM (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:U.S. v. ANDERSON

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Date published: Dec 5, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 4:11CR00145 BSM (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2011)