United States v. Spurlock
3:23-cr-00022
| D. Nev. | Apr 18, 2025Background
- Defendant Cory Spurlock was indicted initially for murder-for-hire conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute marijuana; subsequent superseding indictments expanded the charges to include eight federal counts involving three deaths (J.S., W.L., Y.L.).
- The government’s investigation began in May 2022 after Spurlock had previously been held in state custody on related homicide charges; the case was later transferred to federal jurisdiction.
- The indictment process was complex and protracted, involving several continuances due to discovery, DOJ capital case review, and defense readiness, all while Spurlock remained in pretrial detention.
- The government ultimately decided to seek the death penalty after reconsidering an earlier decision not to, resulting in further delay and the addition of allegations to support capital charges.
- Defendant filed motions to dismiss several counts (2, 3, 4, 7, 8), to dismiss the case for government delay, and to sever certain counts; the government responded to each, and hearings were held as necessary.
- The court addressed each motion in detail, focusing on due process, speedy trial rights, sufficiency and particularity of the charges, grand jury procedure, and evidentiary disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Spurlock's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-indictment delay | Delay violated due process (prejudice from prior incarceration/lost evidence) | Delay reasonable; no actual prejudice or government culpability | Denied |
| Post-indictment delay (Speedy Trial/6th Amend.) | Delay and continuances violated speedy trial rights; prejudice from pretrial detention | Delays due to case complexity, readiness, and death penalty review | Denied |
| Dismissal of Count 4 (tampering w/ witness) | Indictment lacks factual basis and essential element ("federal") | Indictment facially sufficient; adequacy of grand jury evidence immaterial | Denied |
| Dismiss Counts 7 & 8 (Hobbs Act/924) | No admissible evidence for Hobbs Act elements or jurisdiction; challenges grand jury | Only a de minimis effect on commerce needed; evidence disputes for trial | Denied |
| Dismiss Count 2 (21 U.S.C. § 848(e) murder) | Section 848(e) is just a penalty, not a standalone offense; count is vague | Treated as independent offense in circuit; indictment is sufficiently specific | Denied |
| Dismiss Count 3 (murder-for-hire conspiracy) | Insufficient particularity on consideration/agreement; insufficient facts | Indictment meets statutory language; factual issues for trial | Denied |
| Severance of counts | Counts should be severed to avoid prejudice/spillover evidence if count 4 is dismissed | Counts are properly joined; evidence overlaps; prejudice addressed by instructions | Denied |
| Grand jury materials (requests) | Sought grand jury transcripts on various counts based on speculative improprieties | No particularized need shown; preserving secrecy outweighs speculative need | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (actual, non-speculative prejudice required for due process violation from pre-indictment delay)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (lays out four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1955) (indictments not subject to evidentiary sufficiency attack pretrial)
- Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. 301 (2016) (Hobbs Act requirement satisfied if marijuana commerce affected)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (standard for severance under Rule 14)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (penalty vs. substantive offense distinction)
- United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) (indictment must recite each essential element of the offense)
- United States v. Chong, 419 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (§1958 murder-for-hire requires clear mutual agreement of compensation)