United States v. Wright
234 F. Supp. 3d 45
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tyrone Wright indicted on three counts of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) after alleged robberies on April 20–21, 2016; a superseding indictment added counts and corrected language.
- Wright (pro se) moved to compel disclosure of grand jury proceedings/transcripts and to dismiss the indictment for alleged defects and selective/vindictive prosecution; he also moved to suppress evidence and requested subpoenas for recordings.
- The Government provided extensive grand jury materials (agent and officer transcripts unredacted; teller and other witness transcripts and exhibits with personal data redacted) under protective order and produced several body-camera videos.
- Wright raised three alleged flaws: grand jury swearing date (May 5, 2015); use of the word "attempt" in the initial indictment; and missing foreperson signature on the ECF copies of the indictments.
- Court found the grand jury date reasonable given 18-month terms, the superseding indictment cured the "attempt" language, and the filed original superseding indictment bore the proper foreperson signature (and, in any event, a missing foreperson signature is a technical defect).
- Court denied the motion to compel grand jury disclosures (no particularized need shown) and denied Wright's subpoena requests as moot; suppression motion otherwise remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Wright's Argument | Government's / Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand jury materials must be disclosed | Grand jury date and procedural defects warrant disclosure and possible dismissal | Grand jury materials largely produced; defendant must show particularized need for disclosure and alleged defects are either corrected or are technical | Denied — no particularized need; disclosures not required |
| Whether grand jury swearing date (May 5, 2015) is improper | Sworn date allegedly inconsistent with offense timing | Grand juries serve up to 18 months; dates consistent with indictment timing | Denied — date not a flaw |
| Whether use of "attempt" in first indictment invalidates charges | "Attempt" language undermines forfeiture/charge | Superseding indictment removed "attempt" language; prosecutors may supersede to cure defects | Moot/denied — superseding indictment cures issue |
| Whether missing foreperson signature invalidates indictment | Lack of foreperson signature on ECF copy voids indictment | Court verified original is signed; even missing signature is a mere technical irregularity not warranting disclosure or dismissal | Denied — technical defect or already corrected |
| Whether subpoenas for recordings/bodycam must issue | Requests for library footage, officer bodycam, interview video | Government already produced several bodycam videos; court assumes materials provided | Denied (moot); suppression motion otherwise reserved |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Naegele, 474 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (defendant must show particularized need with factual basis to obtain grand jury disclosures)
- United States v. Wilson, 26 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (prosecutor may seek superseding indictment to cure procedural defects)
- United States v. Kanchanalak, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999) (government can correct indictment defects via superseding indictment)
- United States v. Willaman, 437 F.3d 354 (3d Cir. 2006) (foreperson's failure to sign is a mere technical deficiency)
- United States v. Perholtz, 622 F. Supp. 1253 (D.D.C. 1985) (absence of foreman’s signature is a formality and not fatal)
- Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984) (discussing grand jury formalities)
- Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160 (1895) (historical precedent on indictment formalities)