United States v. Stewart
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5542
D. Me.2012Background
- Indictment dated Sept. 22, 2011, charging Stewart with conspiracy to commit a sham marriage under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- Overt acts alleged: 2005 marriage, MA identification/documents to simulate living together, 2005 CIS interview, 2007 Form I-751 filing.
- Defendant moved Nov. 23, 2011 to dismiss as time-barred under § 3282; Government opposed.
- Government argues conspiracy endures until central criminal purpose achieved; liability for all overt acts.
- Indictment alleges last overt act in 2007; Court holds resolution requires jury fact-finding and denies motion.
- Court notes standard: indictment must sketch elements; statute of limitations focuses on last overt act in furtherance of conspiracy
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment is time-barred under § 3282 | Stewart contends key acts occurred outside the five-year window and the last alleged act within window is not an overt act | Stewart argues the central purpose occurred in 2005 and later acts fall outside conspiracy scope | Not time-barred; jury must determine scope and timing of conspiracy's central purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) (conspiracy duration tied to central criminal purpose; limits statute of limitations to last overt act in furtherance of that purpose)
- United States v. Upton, 559 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2009) (conspiracy endures while objectives persist; liability for all overt acts unless withdrawal)
- United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1989) (some conspiracy actions do not continue for statute purposes; removal may be separate)
- United States v. Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (technically sufficient indictment is enough to call for trial; Rule 12 focus on defense not indictment sufficiency)
- United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) (indictment standards; not testing evidence at pretrial)
- United States v. Moran, 984 F.2d 1299 (1st Cir. 1993) (conspiracy facts largely for jury determination; context and details matter)
- United States v. Ferris, 807 F.2d 269 (1st Cir. 1986) (burden to prove indictment within window)
- United States v. Maceo, 873 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (indictment validity focused on face of pleading)
- United States v. Poulin, 645 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.Me. 2009) (indictment standards; pretrial dismissal is extraordinary)