United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
MAURICE HICKS JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a Motion to Exclude/Strike Charges &
Evidence of New Entities (Record Document 75) filed by
Defendant Brad McIntyre (“McIntyre”). McIntyre
argues that the charges, evidence, and claims for forfeiture
related to the new farming entities set forth in the Bill of
Particulars should be stricken, excluded, and dismissed with
1. The grand jury never considered the New Entities in
returning the Indictment.
2. The Indictment did not put McIntyre on “fair
notice” that the New Entities were part of the charges
Id. at 1. McIntyre contends that the Government has
attempted to constructively amend and broaden the Indictment.
See id. at 2. The defense further contends that the
Indictment is fatally vague, broad, and lacks the specificity
to provide McIntyre with constitutional notice. See
id. at 7.
Indictment in this case was returned on October 28, 2015.
See Record Document 1. Count One of the Indictment
charges McIntyre with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. See id. The
Government alleges that the conspiracy began on or about
August 1, 2009 and continued until on or about February 1,
2013. See id. at 2. Count One of the Indictment
reads, in pertinent part:
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY
The object of the conspiracy and the scheme and artifice to
defraud was to obtain agricultural subsidy payments to which
the conspirators were not entitled.
MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY
A. It was part of the conspiracy and the scheme and artifice
to defraud that BRAD A. MCINTYRE recruited and used family
members, farm employees, and friends to create fictitious
farming operations, including but not limited to, Boeuf Bayou
Farms, Sandy Bayou Farms, and others.
Id. (emphasis added). Counts Two through Six of the
Indictment charge McIntyre with five substantive counts of
mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. See
id. at 4. The substantive mail fraud counts relate to
events occurring in 2010 specific to Boeuf Bayou Farms and
Sandy Bayou Farms. See id. Counts Seven through Ten
of the Indictment charge McIntyre with engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. See
id. at 5. The events relevant to Counts Seven through
Ten likewise occurred in 2010. See id. These four
money laundering counts involve criminally derived property
from four different farming entities, two of which fall into
the “New Entities” identified by McIntyre in the
instant motion. See Record Document 80 at 4. The
Government filed a Bill of Particulars (Record Document 62)
on May 1, 2017, specifically referencing five additional
farming entities which were not specifically identified in
motion appears to be both a motion to dismiss charges and a
motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B) requires that motions alleging
a defect in the indictment, including lack of specificity and
failure to state an offense, be brought before trial.
See F.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(3)(B). The propriety of granting
such a motion “is by-and-large contingent upon whether
the infirmity in the prosecution is essentially one of law or
involves determinations of fact.” U.S. v.
Fontenot, 665 F.3d 640, 644 (5th Cir. 2011). If a
question of law is involved, then the trial court's
consideration of the motion is generally proper. See
id. The trial court is required to take the allegations
of the indictment as true. See id.
trial courts enjoy broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary
issues before trial. Motions in limine serve “a
gatekeeping function” and allow “the trial judge
to eliminate from further consideration evidentiary
submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury
because they clearly would be inadmissible for any
purpose.” U.S. v. Mandell, No. 12 CR 842, 2014
WL 287520, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2014). Motions in limine
“are well-established devices that streamline trials
and settle evidentiary disputes in advance, so that trials
are not interrupted mid-course for the consideration of
lengthy and complex evidentiary issues.” U.S. v.
Cox, No. 4:13-CR-45, 2014 ...