Rettenmaier - Motion To Dismiss

Case 8:14-cr-00188-CJC Document 266 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:3742
1 SANDRA R. BROWN
Acting United States Attorney
2 LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
DENNISE D. WILLETT
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Santa Ana Branch Office
5 MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN (Cal. Bar No. 243848)
GREGORY S. SCALLY (Cal. Bar No. 268073)
6 Assistant United States Attorneys
Santa Ana Branch Office
7 411 West Fourth Street, Suite 8000
Santa Ana, California 92701
8 Telephone: (714) 338-3500
Facsimile: (714) 338-3708
9 E-mail: anthony.brown@usdoj.gov
gregory.scally@usdoj.gov
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SA CR No. 14-00188-CJC
15 Plaintiff, GOVERNMENTS MOTION TO DISMISS
INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
16 v. RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 48(a)
17 MARK ALBERT RETTENMAIER,
18 Defendant.
19
20
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel
21
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central
22
District of California, hereby moves to dismiss the indictment in
23
the above-captioned case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
24
Procedure 48(a). The government recommends that the bond be
25
exonerated.
26
27
28
1 This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and
2 authorities and the files and records in the case.
3 Dated: November 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
4 SANDRA R. BROWN
Acting United States Attorney
5
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Chief, Criminal Division
7
DENNISE D. WILLETT
9
10 /s/
MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN
11 GREGORY S. SCALLY
Assistant United States Attorney
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) provides that the
3 government may dismiss an indictment with leave of court. In
4 considering whether to grant the government leave to dismiss an
5 indictment pursuant to Rule 48(a), the Ninth Circuit has instructed:
6 Separation of powers concerns generally require a
7 district court to defer to the governments decision to
8 seek dismissal of a criminal charge because a denial of
9 the motion would represent an intrusion upon prosecutorial

10 prerogative. The decision to dismiss an indictment implicates
11 concerns that the Executive is uniquely suited to evaluate, and
12 a district court should be reluctant to deny its request.
13 United States v. Gonzalez, 58 F.3d 459, 462 (9th Cir. 1995)
14 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit in
15 Gonzalez noted that [i]n light of the history and purpose of Rule
16 48(a), we have . . . required district judges entertaining such
17 requests [for leave to dismiss] to grant considerable deference to
18 the prosecutor. Id. at 461; see also United States v. Hayden, 860
19 F.2d 1483, 1487 (9th Cir. 1988) (While the judiciary has been
20 authorized to supervise prosecutorial decisions to dismiss, Rule
21 48(a) was not enacted for the purpose of usurping the traditional
22 role of the prosecutor to determine whether to terminate a pending
23 prosecution). Courts have also noted that the principal purpose
24 of the leave-of-court requirement is to protect a defendant against
25 prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and
26 recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over

27 the defendants objection. United States v. Garcia-Valenzuela,
28
3
1 232 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Rinaldi v. United
2 States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977)).
3 Prosecutors are primarily responsible for balancing the public
4 and individual interests at stake in a particular prosecution.
5 United States v. Jacobo-Zavala, 241 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2001);
6 Gonzalez, 58 F.3d at 463. With this in mind, a prosecutors
7 decision to dismiss a case should be granted unless the court finds
8 it was made in bad faith. See, e.g., Garcia-Valenzuela, 232 F.3d at
9 1008 (court may deny unopposed motion to dismiss indictment without

10 prejudice only if clearly contrary to manifest public interest);
11 United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988).
12 In this case, having evaluated the evidence remaining after the
13 Courts ruling on defendants suppression motions, the government
14 believes it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the case.
15 Consequently, the government respectfully requests that this Court
16 dismiss the indictment against defendant.
17
Dated: November 20, 2017 SANDRA R. BROWN
18 Acting United States Attorney
19
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Chief, Criminal Division
21
DENNISE D. WILLETT
23
24
/s/
25 MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN
GREGORY S. SCALLY
26 Assistant United States Attorneys
27
28

Rettenmaier - Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rettenmaier - Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:14-cr-00188-CJC Document 266 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:3742

1 This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and

2 authorities and the files and records in the case.

3 Dated: November 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) provides that the

3 government may dismiss an indictment with leave of court. In

4 considering whether to grant the government leave to dismiss an

5 indictment pursuant to Rule 48(a), the Ninth Circuit has instructed:

6 Separation of powers concerns generally require a

7 district court to defer to the governments decision to

8 seek dismissal of a criminal charge because a denial of

9 the motion would represent an intrusion upon prosecutorial

11 concerns that the Executive is uniquely suited to evaluate, and

12 a district court should be reluctant to deny its request.

13 United States v. Gonzalez, 58 F.3d 459, 462 (9th Cir. 1995)

14 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit in

16 48(a), we have . . . required district judges entertaining such

17 requests [for leave to dismiss] to grant considerable deference to

22 role of the prosecutor to determine whether to terminate a pending

23 prosecution). Courts have also noted that the principal purpose

24 of the leave-of-court requirement is to protect a defendant against

25 prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and

26 recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over

2 States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977)).

3 Prosecutors are primarily responsible for balancing the public

4 and individual interests at stake in a particular prosecution.

6 Gonzalez, 58 F.3d at 463. With this in mind, a prosecutors

7 decision to dismiss a case should be granted unless the court finds

8 it was made in bad faith. See, e.g., Garcia-Valenzuela, 232 F.3d at

9 1008 (court may deny unopposed motion to dismiss indictment without

12 In this case, having evaluated the evidence remaining after the

13 Courts ruling on defendants suppression motions, the government

14 believes it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the case.

15 Consequently, the government respectfully requests that this Court

16 dismiss the indictment against defendant.

You might also like