United States v. Michael W. Critzer
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 475, 1992 WL 175, 951 F.2d 306 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal sufficiency of a criminal indictment must be determined solely from the text on its face. An indictment is sufficient if it tracks the language of the statute it charges and sets forth the essential elements of the crime, thereby informing the defendant of the charge and protecting against double jeopardy.
Facts:
- Michael Critzer was alleged to have committed bank fraud in violation of federal law.
- Critzer was also alleged to have unlawfully entered a bank with the intent to commit a larceny or another felony.
- Critzer was further alleged to have taken property that was in the custody or control of a bank.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Michael Critzer in a three-count indictment in a federal district court.
- Critzer filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague.
- In opposing the motion, the government gratuitously listed the facts it expected to prove at trial.
- The district court considered these proffered facts and, finding them insufficient to constitute a crime, granted the motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The government then filed a new, two-count indictment against Critzer.
- Critzer again moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed the second indictment on the same grounds as the first.
- The government, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal of both indictments to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court err by looking beyond the face of an indictment and considering a prosecutor's proffer of facts to determine whether the alleged conduct constitutes a federal crime when ruling on a motion to dismiss?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a district court errs by considering facts outside the face of the indictment. The sufficiency of a criminal indictment is determined exclusively from its text, and there is no procedural mechanism, such as summary judgment, for a pre-trial determination of the sufficiency of the government's evidence. The court's role is not to assess the factual basis for the charge but to ensure the indictment itself is legally adequate. Citing precedents like U.S. v. Cole and U.S. v. Yonn, the court held that an indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it tracks the wording of the relevant statute and sets forth the essential elements of the crime. Since the indictments against Critzer met this standard, they should not have been dismissed.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the 'four-corners rule' for evaluating the sufficiency of criminal indictments, strictly prohibiting pre-trial 'mini-trials' on the sufficiency of the evidence. By separating the legal adequacy of the charging document from the factual strength of the prosecution's case, the decision preserves the distinct roles of the grand jury (to charge) and the petit jury (to determine guilt based on evidence). This precedent ensures that a legally valid charge will proceed to trial, preventing dismissals based on a judge's preliminary assessment of anticipated evidence and upholding the government's right to present its case.
