United States v. Wallace

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARCEL WALLACE, Defendant.

Nos. 3:22-cr-46, 3:23-cr-30

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

May 8, 2023

ORDER: (1) GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION AGAINST DEFENDANT MARCEL WALLACE IN 3:22-cr-46 (3:22-cr-46, Doc. No. 43); AND (2) PROCEEDING WITH THE INDICTMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT IN 3:23-cr-30

Hon Michael J. Newman United States District Judge.

The Government initially charged Defendant Marcel Wallace in an information in Case No. 3:22-cr-46. See 3:22-cr-46 Doc. No. 30. After proceeding in that case, the Government filed an indictment against Defendant in a new case, Case No 3:23-cr-30. See 3:23-cr-30, Doc. No. 2. Then, for effective case management and judicial efficiency, the Court ordered the Government to advise whether it intends to proceed in both cases or dismiss the information in 3:22-cr-46. See 3:22-cr-46, Doc. No. 42; 3:23-cr-30 Doc. No. 5. The Government addressed that Order by moving to dismiss the information against Defendant in 3:22-cr-46. 3:22-cr-46, Doc. No. 43. These cases are now before the Court on that motion.

“The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a). “[T]he government is normally free to dismiss one indictment under Rule 48(a) and bring another indictment based on further development of the case.” United States v. Stapleton, 297 Fed.Appx. 413, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). “The principal object of the ‘leave of court' requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial

2

harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977) (citations omitted). “[W]hen the government requests a Rule 48(a) dismissal in good faith, the district court is duty bound to honor the request.” United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1488 (9th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Burks, 561 F.Supp.3d 762, 765-66 (M.D. Tenn. 2021).

Because Defendant has responded to the Government's motion and states that he does not object (3:22-cr-36, Doc. No. 45), and there is no indication of prosecutorial harassment or bad faith in the Government dismissing and recharging Defendant, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion to dismiss the information. 3:22-cr-46, Doc. No. 43.

...