United States of America ) ) v. ) ) Scott M. Galindez ) Crim. No. 87-60 Stephen Semple ) Crim. No. 87-61 William Thomas ) Crim. No. 87-62 Phillip Joseph ) Crim. No. 87-63 Ellen B. Thomas ) Crim. No. 87-64 Andrew Hammerman, and ) Crim. No. 87 65 Robert Dorrough ) FILED APR 6 1987 Robin White 1/ )Clerk, U.S.District Court District of Columbia
The court may order two or more indictments or informations or both to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been joined in a single indictment or information. The procedure shall be the same if the prosecution were under such single indictment or information.
Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses ....
to have participated in " (1) the same act or transaction
constituting an offense or offenses, or (2) the same series of
acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses "
C.A. Wright , Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal §144,
at 495 (1982). The Rule envisions joinder of acts arising, out
of a conspiracy, a common scheme or plan, a "substantial
identity of facts or participants,'' or another type of connected
occurrence where the indictment invites joint proof. Id. at 503-05.
1/ The government has moved to consolidate its case against Robin White with the other cases now before the Court or that the government would place before the Court. As far as the Court can tell from the files kept by the Clerk of the Court, neither an indictment nor an information has been issued against Robin White. Therefore, the Court knows of no charge against him or her; if any charge there be, the Court is ignorant of its content.
to perform the alleged acts in concert or that the acts can be said to form a '"series." Nothing even remotely suggests that the government could offer joint proof against the defendants. The facts may well differ as to each defendant, just as defenses may differ. What the government appears to ask is that the Court consolidate cases of seven individuals who, apparently by themselves and with no participation from any other person, allegedly violated a regulation in a similar way in a similar place. When put so bluntly, it is clear that the government's motion is without foundation. See United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 (1978); United States v. Jackson, 562 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
above-captioned cases for trial shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is
//s// Charles R. Richey
CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE