IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 19, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
WARRICK D. SCOTT, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge
REAGAN, District Judge
On May 22, 2008, Defendant Scott was charged in Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Indictment returned and filed on May 22, 2008 (Doc. 12). The indictment also contained forfeiture allegations in Count 8 providing Scott with notice that he has an interest in property that is subject to forfeiture in accordance with the applicable statutes set forth in those allegations.
The Government now seeks to amend the indictment by interlineation (Doc. 75). Specifically, Count 3 incorporates the offense in Count 1 "as it was alleged." But it incorrectly refers to that offense as "possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine" rather than "conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine," as is actually charged in Count 1. Accordingly, the Government moves to amend Count 3 by interlineation so as to refer to the proper offense as charged in Count 1.
Additionally, the Government moves to amend the second forfeiture allegation in Count 8. Currently, it states that "Upon conviction of the offense alleged in Count 3 of this indictment . . . WARRICK D. SCOTT, a/k/a "Dirty," shall forfeit . . . all firearms and ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of the offense described in Count 2 of this Indictment." However, the second reference to Count 2 should actually refer to Count 3.
The Government argues that these amendments represent a change to the form, rather than the substance, of the Indictment. The Government also represents in its motion that defense counsel does not object and that defense counsel agrees that the proposed amendments go to the form rather than the substance of the Indictment.
Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to amend the indictment by interlineation (Doc. 75).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.