McGurgan v. Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[t]he operative question [for a motion to dismiss the indictment] is whether the allegations [in the four corners of the indictment], if proven, would be sufficient to permit a jury to find that the crimes charged were committed”
• “While the defendants are required to assert their argument that charges in the Superseding Indictment are multiplicitous through pre-trial motion, multiplicity claims are better sorted out post-trial.” (citation modified)
• “The defendants have not demonstrated that they would suffer any prejudice from allowing the government to proceed on the allegedly multiplicitous counts, particularly since the defendants assert that the charges encompass the same underlying facts and conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).