United States v. Thomas, CR 87-60, 87-64

MAR 3 1987

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        v.

SCOTT M. GALINDEZ          CRIMINAL NO. 87-0123M 
                           JUDGE RICHEY

STEPHEN SEMPLE             CRIMINAL NO. 87-0117M     
                           JUDGE GESELL

WILLIAM THOMAS             CRIMINAL NO. 87-0114M  
                           JUDGE PARKER

PHILLIP JOSEPH             CRIMINAL NO. 87-0119M 
                           JUDGE GREEN

ELLEN B. THOMRS            CRlMINAL NO. 87-0116M
                           JUDGE SPORKIN

ANDREW HAMMERMAN           CRIMINAL NO, 87-0118M
                           JUDGE PENN

ROBIN WHITE                CRIMINAL No. 87-0120M

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL

The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully requests that these cases be consolidated for trial before the Honorable Charles F. Richey, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim, P, 13 and Local Rules 405 and 406. As grounds therefore the United States states as follows:

1. All of the defendants are charged with unlawful canping in Lafayette Park on December 22, 1986. On that date, Park Police officers observed the defendants lying in an area of Lafayette Park for a number of hours in the early morning, apparently sleeping. These defendants were charged individually and have been assigned for trial before seven different judges.

2. Rule 13, Fed. R. Crim. P., provides that

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.

In this case, all defendants clearly could have been joined as co-defendants under Rule 8, Fed. R. Crim. P.: defendants participated in the same act, that is, sleeping in Lafayette Park in the early morning hours of December 22, 1986, that constitutes the offense in each case.

3. A joint trial of all of these defendants will also prevent a needless expenditure of judicial resources, and will eliminate the necessity of the same government witnesses having to testify to the same basic facts in seven separate trials, Indeed, the primary purpose of joinder is to insure that a given transaction need only be proved once. United States v. Treadwell, 566 F. Supp. 80, 86 (D.D.C. 1983). The joint trial of persons charged together with committing the same offense is the rule rather than the exception. United States v. Bruner, 212 U.S. App. D.C. 36, 47-48, 657 F.2d 1278, 1289-90 (1981); United States v. Mack, 151 U.S. App. D.C. 162, 166, 466 F. 2d 333, 337, cert.

Rule 8 (b) provides that:

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 transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.

denied, 409 U.S. 952 (1972). The preference for holding joint trials

reflects the strong federa1 policy favoring joinder because [joinder] expedites the administration of justice, reduces the congestion of the trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only once.

United States v. Leonard, 494 F.2d 955, 965 (D,C. 1974) cites omitted) . Joinder further " avoid[s] delays in bringing those accused of crime to trial." Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 134 (1968). In short, "a substantial public interest supports joint trials." United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 1973).

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that these cases be consolidated for trial, and assigned to the Honorable Charles F. Richey pursuant to Local Rules 405 and 406,

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH E. DIGENOVA

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

LINDA S. CHAPMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that a copy of the foregoing has heen mailed to Scott Galindez, 270 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 12206; Stephen Semple, 3450 Terrace Ct., Alexandria, Virginia 22302; William Thomas, 1440 N. Street, N.W.#410, Washington, D.C.; Phillip Joseph, P.O. Box 27217, Washington, D.C.; Ellen 8. Thomas, 1440 N. Street, N.W. #410, Washington, D.C.; Andrew Hammerman, 1440 N. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.and 711 W. Main Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801; and Robin White, P.O. Box 27217, Washington, D.C. 20038, and 415 Kelly Avenue, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 15221, this 3rd day of March, 1987.

LINDA S. CHAPMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

555 4th Street, N.W.

Room 5915

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 272-9078

Contents

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park