UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES,

         Versus                      CRIMINAL NO. 87-60
                                     Chief Judge Richey
STEPHEN SEMPLE, defendant
OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STEPHEN SEMMPLE aka SUNRISE
TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL

On March 3, 1987 the United States, by and through Linda S. Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Columbia, has filed, pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 13 and Local Rules 405 and 406, a Motion requesting that the Information filed in this case (February 18, 1987, U.S. Mag. No. 87-0117M-01 be consolidated for trial with separate Informations.

As grounds for the proposed consolidation the United States purports the following "facts:"

1. "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..." Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial (Mot. Con.), filed March 3, 1987, page 1.

2. "(D)efendants 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." Ibid, page 2.

3. "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;" Ibid.

The United States cites procedure:

"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." Rule 8(b).

ARGUMENT

Since September, 1986 defendant Sunrise has, been involved in an individual demonstration, within the provisions of 36 CFR 50.19(b)(1), the Small Group Permit Exemption.

Assuming, arguendo 1/, that defendant Sunrise did indeed commit the act of "apparently sleeping," AND FURTHER assuming that "apparently sleeping," or even plain "sleeping" constitutes "the offense;" defendant Sunrise submits that it is literally meaningless, as well as realistically untenable, for the United States to contend that some other defendat may "have participated in the same act ("sleeping") or transactions ("apparently sleeping"[?]) constitutes an offense or offenses." Rule 8(b), parenthesis added.

Regardless of whether "the act" this defendant committed is defined as "apparently sleeping," or "apparently demonstrating," he was doing that "act" ALONE. The infirmity of the United States' position should be self evident; there is no combination of circumstances under which the government might conceivably establish that this defendant "participated in," or "committed with" any other defendant the "act of sleeping."
________________________________

1/ For the Record defendant Sunrise makes no admissions, denies having been asleep, and reserves all defenses available to him.



Defendant asserts that, as an individual demonstrator, responsibility for "the act(s)" which constitute his "demonstration" reside entirely with, and do not extend beyond his immediate person. In the interest of justice defendant Sunrise believes that joinder of other parties to the information under which he has been charged can only servee to prejudice either himself or other defendants.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE defendant, pro se, Sunrise respectfully requests that this case proceed to the trial, as originally assigned, before Judge Gesell, and be served from the separate individuals who did not commit "the same offense" with or as any other individual.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Semple

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Stephen Semple, certify that a copy of the foregoinng OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STEPHEN SEMPLE TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL, was served by U. S. mail, first class, postage pre-paid upon Linda S. Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney 555 $th Street, N.W., Room 5915 Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 272-9078 on this __th day of March, 1987.

Stephen Semple


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES,

         Versus                      CRIMINAL NO. 87-60
                                     Chief Judge Richey
STEPHEN SEMPLE, defendant

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion To Consolidate Cases for Trial, filed by the United States, March 3, 1987, and the Opposition of Defendant Stephen Semple thereto, filed March 13, 1987, it is, this __th day of March, 1987,

ORDERED: The Motion of the United States to Consolidate Cases for Trial be and hereby is denied, and this matter shall proceed for hearing of pre-trial motions as originally docketed before USDC, the Honorable J. Gesell.

Chief Judge, U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia